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 13665 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2003 17:52:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.209.173) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 11 Jan 2003 17:52:17 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4613ED8; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:52:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E2059C1.5080900@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:52:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Known problems with dcache? 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> <20030110232212.GA307@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00194.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. Clearly another factor to preclude when establishing the baseline. The base comparison is dcache vs codestream vs nothing, a potential secondary effect is with the thread code. Andrew