3 ms·
Fourth tweet states that he does mean translation lookaside buffer. If it’s true, it’s indeed insanely big.
by msk-lywenn 5y ago
Fourth tweet states that he does mean translation lookaside buffer. If it’s true, it’s indeed insanely big.
- kimixa 5y agoI'm pretty sure that's false, as translation lookaside buffers simply cannot be of that size while hitting the performance requirements. I suspect they've seen someone refer to a TLB (Translation Lookaside Buffer) and TLB (TiLe Buffer) and conflated the two.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- microtherion 5y agoThey also refer to it as a "Transaction Lookaside Buffer", which reinforces the impression given off by the overall twitter thread that this was secondhand information relayed by somebody who has a very weak grasp of the technical details involved.
- randyrand 5y agoVadim is a smart guy but not a programmer. So you’re right he may not mean Transaction Lookaside Buffer.
- Taniwha 5y ago32Mb may mean the total amount of memory that can be mapped at once in the graphics TLB .... Main cpu usage of TLBs is likely very different from graphics usage (which is pulling all the data for a frame 60 times a second) ... For some workloads 32Mb might be tiny and result in the TLB thrashing
- rayiner 5y agoI suspect it’s 32MB of coverage, which would be 2,000 entries which is a typical TLB size these days. Although then what’s he talking about the tile buffer?
- Taniwha 5y ago2000 is probably the L2 TLB size, L1 TLBs are usually in the order of 10s of entries (but as I pointed out the decisions you make for graphics engines are very different from those you make for CPUs)