Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:41:38 -0800 (PST) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: smp@freebsd.org Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com Subject: Re: RE: Syscall contention tests return, userret() bugs/issues. Message-ID: <200203311841.g2VIfcn18637@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <200203311834.g2VIYrt89705@apollo.backplane.com> References: <XFMail.20020329155622.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200203311809.g2VI90H89605@apollo.backplane.com> <200203311817.g2VIHEB18544@vashon.polstra.com> <200203311834.g2VIYrt89705@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <200203311834.g2VIYrt89705@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> wrote: > > Now we are quibbling over terminology. Intel caches have a write FIFO. > They are not a full-blown delayed-write caches. There is a BIG > difference. That is, you can't have an arbitrary amount of dirty data > sitting in an intel cache. There is nothing in the Intel documentation which would support that statement. The cache is write-back. Nowhere does the documentation say anything about dirty lines being flushed to memory except when required by the cache control protocol (which is pretty standard). > This means that a write will be pushed out to main memory in fairly > short order. No, I don't think so. There is no evidence of that in the Intel docs. John -- John Polstra John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203311841.g2VIfcn18637>