* Re: L1_CACHE_SHIFT on sparc64
2002-07-12 21:58 L1_CACHE_SHIFT on sparc64 Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-07-12 21:55 ` David S. Miller
2002-07-12 22:14 ` Thunder from the hill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David S. Miller @ 2002-07-12 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: thunder; +Cc: linux-kernel, zippel, ultralinux
From: Thunder from the hill <thunder@ngforever.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:58:28 -0600 (MDT)
What is the proper value for L1_CACHE_SHIFT on sparc64?
The cache itself is two chunks of 16 bytes each, makes up 32 bytes. On
i386, L1_CACHE_BYTES == (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT), so if this applies here,
too, we have a L1_CACHE_SHIFT of... 5?
Right. But who needs L1_CACHE_SHIFT? Nothing generic should
reference it. Did something get added to 2.5.x that needs it now?
I wouldn't have noticed yet as I've been away for nearly half a month
on vaction until a day or two ago.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* L1_CACHE_SHIFT on sparc64
@ 2002-07-12 21:58 Thunder from the hill
2002-07-12 21:55 ` David S. Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-07-12 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: Roman Zippel, ultralinux
Hi,
What is the proper value for L1_CACHE_SHIFT on sparc64?
The cache itself is two chunks of 16 bytes each, makes up 32 bytes. On
i386, L1_CACHE_BYTES == (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT), so if this applies here,
too, we have a L1_CACHE_SHIFT of... 5?
Regards,
Thunder
--
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: L1_CACHE_SHIFT on sparc64
2002-07-12 21:55 ` David S. Miller
@ 2002-07-12 22:14 ` Thunder from the hill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-07-12 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller; +Cc: thunder, linux-kernel, zippel, ultralinux
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, David S. Miller wrote:
> Right. But who needs L1_CACHE_SHIFT?
fs/dquot.c uses it.
> Nothing generic should reference it. Did something get added to 2.5.x
> that needs it now?
Must have been 2.5, but not since 2.5.24.
> I wouldn't have noticed yet as I've been away for nearly half a month
> on vaction until a day or two ago.
Welcome back!
Regards,
Thunder
--
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-07-12 22:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-07-12 21:58 L1_CACHE_SHIFT on sparc64 Thunder from the hill
2002-07-12 21:55 ` David S. Miller
2002-07-12 22:14 ` Thunder from the hill
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®