cpu cache explained

If this isn't exactly what you wanted, please try our Search (there's a LOT of techy and non-techy stuff here about Linux, Unix, Mac OS X and just computers in general!):

From - Fri Dec 10 19:22:14 1999
Xref: world comp.unix.sco.misc:111631
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Path: world!blanket.mitre.org!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!info.usuhs.mil!uky.edu!xenitec!news
From: Bela Lubkin <filbo@deepthought.armory.com>
Subject: Re: 5.0.5 MP system running slowly with 1Gb RAM
Resent-From: mmdf@xenitec.on.ca
Submit-To: scomsc@xenitec.on.ca
Cc: Graham Nicholls <graham@rockcons.co.uk>
Organization: work for SCO, speak for myself
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:28:57 GMT
Message-ID: <199912101528.aa13320@deepthought.armory.com> 
References: <384EACCE.5C69F28E@rockcons.co.uk> <2RO34.93408$7I4.2356249@news5.giganews.com> <384FCC47.5DA50F39@aplawrence.com> <384FF323.4383@uq.net.au> <38504BF5.B17ABAB2@rockcons.co.uk> 
 <3850DB25.E3DAD90B@aplawrence.com> <385131EA.AC3EE945@rockcons.co.uk>
Sender: news@xenitec.on.ca (xenitec.on.ca News Administrator)
Precedence: list
Lines: 47
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010

Graham Nicholls wrote:

> If it is a cache issue, then why have some respondants reported very
> good performance with MP systems with 1Gb RAM and only 256k 
> cache chips ? 

There is no linear relationship between size of cache and amount of RAM
it can cache.  This is a common misconception.

Cache designs vary greatly.  One of the design parameters is the width
of tag RAM entries.  Tag RAM entries identify, for each location in the
cache, which location in main memory is represented.

One common tag RAM width is 8 bits.  An 8-bit tag can specify one of 256
locations.  An 8-bit tag combined with a 512K direct-mapped cache could
cache 256 * 512K == 128MB of RAM.  However, most caches today are not
direct; 2-way and 4-way associative caches are more common.  An N-way
associative cache is like N direct-mapped caches of (total size/N).  So
a 512K 4-way associative cache with 8-bit tags could cache 256 * (512K /
4) == 32MB of RAM.  Such a design is improbable; it would almost
certainly be designed with wider tags.  4-way 512K with 12-bit tags
would be able to cache 2^12 * 512K / 4 == 512MB.

You didn't have a performance problem at 512MB, and you do at 1GB.  So
your cache parameters are some combination which tops out at 512MB.  We
know one parameter (512K), and we can guess the associativity (1
(direct), 2- or 4-way).  The possible combinations are:

  associativity      tag length    cache size    memory coverage
  =============      ==========    ==========    ===============
  direct-mapped          10           512K           512MB
  2-way associative      11           512K           512MB
  4-way associative      12           512K           512MB

You might be able to fix this.  Go into BIOS setup, look for "advanced
chipset setup" or whatever it offers.  See if it has a "way-ness" knob.
If so, reduce it from 4-way to 2-way, or 2-way to direct.  With the same
tag length, this should double the amount of memory covered.

The Pentium III's L2 cache is inside the CPU.  I'm not really sure
whether you get to control any of this; and if you do, I'm not sure your
BIOS setup will give you access to it.  But it's worth a try.

I tried to find documentation on cachability ranges for Intel CPUs, but
gave up after a while.  It doesn't seem to be very public information.

>Bela<

Buy Take Control of Apple Mail in Leopard

Buy Take Control of Fonts in Leopard

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.