> Somebody mentioned that some research needs to be done on how a second level
> cache will effect performance. Any suggestions on how to do this?
One data point: 486DX2/66, IBM's CSet/2 compiler, 16Mb ram, 256k L2 cache
compile time is aprox. 2.5x faster with the L2 cache than without.
> Based on observation it seems that a cache is worth it, SGI mips 4000 SC is
> around 35/34 and the mips 4000 PC is around 60/58 specint/specfp.
> Adding the decreased locality of Unix+X11 over dos, the higher (100 Mhz
> internal) clock rate, and mips binaries being bigger then 486 it would
> seem that a large secondary cache would be necessary. Based on a 486's
> secondary cache being useful.
I would suggest 256k expandable to 1Mb. Maybe someone could run some apps
on the MIPS simulator, and instrument the emulator to record the saved cycles
for caches of different sizes.
> Any suggestions on how to get some numbers experimentally?
> I have a decstation 3100 running Ultrix, and a 486/66 running linux
> available for any attempts to quantify the advantages of second level
Can you turn its L2 cache off under software/hardware control?
If you can, you might want to try the following with the L2 cache enabled/
disabled, and if you do, please post both sets of numbers:
- recompiling gcc
- cross compiling the Linux kernal
- a database test of some sort
- the Byte unix benchmarks