Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!fortune!wall
From: wall@fortune.UUCP (Jim Wall)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Cache revisited
Message-ID: <5459@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 12:03:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.5459
Posted: Tue Aug 13 12:03:31 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:09:41 EDT
References: <5374@fortune.UUCP> <901@loral.UUCP> <2583@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: wall@fortune.UUCP (Jim wall)
Distribution: net
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 17


    Someone in replying tomy original article on cache said that 
the hit rate on the internal cache in the 68020 is about 50%. 
Anyone care to agree with that?  Anyone care to tell me what 
reasonable application or operating system spends 50% of its time
in loops that are smaller that 256 bytes??

    The numbers that are claimed for the hit rates on caches are 
nothing short of incredible. I think the CPU manufacturers are the
instigators, and nobody bothers to question them. 

    But, hey, I could be wrong. It's happened before. So let's hear
it. Anyone who claims high cache hit rates on normal applications,
let's hear the justification for them.

						-Jim Wall
					...amd!fortune!wall