6 ms·
This makes sense in general, because the caches are the most precious resource. However, in my case the working set is small enough and the processes are top-p
by thanatos519 5y ago
This makes sense in general, because the caches are the most precious resource.
However, in my case the working set is small enough and the processes are top-priority so they probably stay in the L2 if not the L1. Also ... I want to keep using my desktop so I don't mind the intrusion of my interactive processes.
Hmm. Is there a way to check how much L1/L2/L3 a process is occupying?
- inetknght 5y ago> in my case the working set is small enough and the processes are top-priority so they probably stay in the L2 if not the L1. Maybe! Maybe not. If it's top priority on core X but something else with a much better (or cache-unfriendly) dataset is on the hyperthread-sibling core then your high priority process can still have cache misses.
- jeffbee 5y agoNo, but it is possible on certain top-end Intel SKUs to partition the last-level caches such that they are effectively reserved to certain processes.
- wmf 5y agopqos?
- jeffbee 5y agoEven RDT isn't going to give you insight into L1 occupancy.