From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Received: (qmail 4167 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2003 23:21:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2003 23:21:58 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18XALx-0005UL-00; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:22:25 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18X8Tc-00005L-00; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:22:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Known problems with dcache? Message-ID: <20030110232212.GA307@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3E1F46CB.9060104@redhat.com> <20030110222551.GA10139@nevyn.them.org> <3E1F4ACC.7080504@redhat.com> <20030110223834.GA10769@nevyn.them.org> <3E1F4F74.5020704@redhat.com> <20030110230435.GA32277@nevyn.them.org> <3E1F542B.9060700@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E1F542B.9060700@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 06:15:55PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>Was it on an i386? If it was, the other other cache would easily skew > >>any results. > > > > > >Other other cache? Codestream doesn't affect this so I don't know what > >you mean. > > It definitly affects things. Both codestream and dcache are chewing cpu > cycles trying to cache instruction reads. A valid comparison would at > least involve no dcache/codestream. Sure; but it's overwhelmed by the LinuxThreads I/O, which doesn't touch codestream at all; instruction reads weren't even a measurable time last time I did this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer