Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:32:19 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: x86: 4kstacks default |
| |
On Sun, 20 April 2008 20:19:30 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > >>> When dealing in those dimensions, savings of 100k are substantial. In > >>> some causes they may be the difference between 16MiB or 32MiB, which > >>> translates to manufacturing costs. In others it simply means that the > >>> system can cache > >> If you need the stack you don't have any less cache foot print. > >> If you don't need it you don't have any either. > > > > This part I don't understand. > > I was just objecting to your claim that small stack implies smaller > cache foot print.
The cache I referred to is called DRAM, not L1.
Jörn
-- Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. -- Howard Aiken quoted by Ken Iverson quoted by Jim Horning quoted by Raph Levien, 1979 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |