"Gleb O. Raiko" wrote:
> Carsten Langgaard wrote:
> > "Gleb O. Raiko" wrote:
> > > Basically, requirement of uncached run makes hadrware logic much simpler
> > > and allows to save silicon a bit.
> > That could be true, but then again I suggest making specific cache routines
> > for those
> > CPUs.
> > It would be a real performance hit for the rest of us, if we have to
> > operate from
> > uncached space.
> In theory, yes, there is a performance penalty. In practice, I doubt
> this penalty is significant. Sure, Linux likes to flush cahces, not to
> say more. But, did somebody measure the penalty of uncached runs? Even
> with microbencnmarks like lmbench.
Yes, I have tried running linux this way, because I wanted to eliminate the
reason I sow
cache problems on one of our tests chip, was due to execute the cache operating
instruction from cached space.
I didn't thought it was that big a penalty, because you are flushing the cache
I didn't had to run any benchmarks, so obviously was it when I booted my system.
_ _ ____ ___ Carsten Langgaard Mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
|\ /|||___)(___ MIPS Denmark Direct: +45 4486 5527
| \/ ||| ____) Lautrupvang 4B Switch: +45 4486 5555
TECHNOLOGIES 2750 Ballerup Fax...: +45 4486 5556