Del Cecchi
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: why L1 and L2 cache |
|
|
<rambam@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:87r79f3uye.fsf@kafka.homenet...
| Quote: | "Peter L. Montgomery" <Peter-Lawrence.Montgomery@cwi.nl> writes:
what is the need for two levels of cache, L1 and L2?
Ignore the other posters, plagiarizing their answers will give you a
lowly C. Plagiarizing my answer, on the other hand, will guarantee
you a uniquely special mark.
Address Equity is the most important reason for having two
caches. This is how it works:
In advanced architectures with two caches, one is designated the C*
and the other is designated the P*
When culturally sensitive algorithms are run, better cache stride
matching is obtained if the caches are dynamically renamed to S* and
S**
Symmetry sharing/breaking schemes with optional temporal reversal
algorithms then permit the generation of irreproducible results.
http://www.jir.com/geographic.html
As an extension of this concept, HP's next generation processor using
temporal coherence will have 7 levels of caches, one for each day of
the week. Depending on the day of the week, one level will be
designated the primary cache ( a.k.a : the designated driver ) and the
other will be the drinkers. This has profound links with the drinking
philosophers problem.
C* : Catholic
P* : Protestant
S* : Shia
S**: Sunni
|
You clearly are confused about the history of caches and PowerPC
processors. S* which is short for Sstar was not followed by Sstarstar but
by Istar. And preceded by Nstar which wasn't PowerPC compatible but was
sold as the System/32 anyway.
And where do the Suffi fit in? |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in