3 ms·
> That’s what Apple explicitly says. Why they don’t match with measurements is another matter… (and no, it’s not a typo) Ridiculous. You're just making things
by throwawaylinux 4y ago
> That’s what Apple explicitly says. Why they don’t match with measurements is another matter… (and no, it’s not a typo)
Ridiculous. You're just making things up. It clearly doesn't have a 160kB 6-way L1 dcache. Nor are the small cores 64kB 6-way -- those don't even divide that's ridiculous. Why do you say it's not a typo?
They "explicitly" say it is 160kB in that backwater code comment. They also explicitly say it's 128kB in this presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AwdkGKmZ0I&t=534s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AwdkGKmZ0I&t=534s so what makes your source the authoritative one?? Pretty obviously it's a quick cut and paste job with a typo (two in one line actually) in it.
> ECC? Needs hugepages? Or hardware erratum? I don’t know for sure.
ECC? Erratum? Come on. It's clearly because it's 128kB.
- my123 4y agoI actually asked and got told that it’s not a typo. But not more details beyond that so I can only speculate… And yeah, 192KB/128KB is what the HW behaves as by all accounts by measurements, making this even more odd…
- throwawaylinux 4y agoOkay so it was deliberately written by someone who was misinformed about at least two properties of the caches then, both size and associativity.