🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Apr7.193803.4888@nmt.edu> swhitlat@nmt.edu (Steven Whitlatch) writes:
>In article <CnwCK1.9F9@walter.bellcore.com> hacker@patagonia.bellcore.com writes:
>>
>>The cache will affect all OS's.  By way of example, a 486 with 32MB RAM
>>was incorrectly configured to cache only the first 16MB.  We saw
>>benchmark deterioration on the order of 2 depending on whether the
>>application was using the cached or uncached RAM.  (this was under OS/2
>>2.11).  That is, when the OS happened to load the application into the
>>cached RAM it ran almost twice as fast as when loaded into the uncached
>>RAM.  These randomly varying results of our benchmark were very
>>puzzling until we figured out what was really going on.  In any case,
>>the conclusion is clear, the cache is very important.
>>
>
>
>	Thanks for your attempt to help, but myself and the previous
>	poster are refering to the external cpu cache, not the ram cache.
>
	OK, I'm confused.  If the external cpu cache doesn't cache
ram, what does it cache?  A cache for the cpu is there to provide
quick access to items stored in memory, the memory being RAM.  Or
am I missing something?

>	Linux doesn't use a ram cache anyway.  It uses dynamic buffers.
>
	I don't know Linux enough to know what the difference
here is.  Normally the cache is hardware level component.  The
operating system, unless it specifically turns it off, makes use
of it.  Or again, am I missing something?

>	Steve Whitlatch
>	swhitlat@prism.nmt.edu
>


-- 
--
Greg d. Moore           | All that glitters is not gold.
Green Mountain Software |
Troy NY, 12180          | (Also strider@acm.rpi.edu)