> Brilliant. You need what, a 6x larger cache just to break even with
> the amount of time you're running in-cache?
That's going to be hard, since the cache will also need to be
faster in order to feed the CPU core. Making a cache both
larger AND faster at the same time will need some smart people.
> And of course the compiler is GOING to put NOPs in that because it
> won't always be able to figure out something for the second and third
> cores to do this clock, regardless of how good a compiler it is.
Compilers are also notoriously bad at runtime optimisations.
> That's just beautiful.
I also never expected Intel to dispose of themselves in such
a cute way.
cheers,
Rik
-- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
- 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/