Re: DOD patches and some remarks

2003-01-11 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Steve Fink wrote: Ah! So all we have to do is use discontiguous PMCs -- the first 32 bytes is at offset 0, the second at byte offset 128 or so. Then we can interleave them, so that everything in offset 0..127 gets loaded into the cache, but 128..255 is left untouched. (Just kidding.) s/32/16/

Re: DOD patches and some remarks

2003-01-10 Thread Steve Fink
On Jan-10, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > You get double the amount of PMCs into the cache - used during marking > and freeing. It isn't related to alignment, just more throughput. Oh. You're right. I was thinking that the unused portion of the PMC wouldn't need to be loaded into the cache, so that

Re: DOD patches and some remarks

2003-01-10 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Steve Fink wrote: On Jan-09, Leopold Toetsch wrote: So the question is, should I checked it in / partially / forget it. Changes are: - SPMC (small or scalar PMC) with half the size of a PMC, no promotion or whatever to a PMC, disabled with one define in pmc.c - pool flags with aligned pools,

Re: DOD patches and some remarks

2003-01-10 Thread Steve Fink
On Jan-09, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > I have here now ~15 files different to CVS, which I would like to sync > in either direction for easier future changes. > So the question is, should I checked it in / partially / forget it. > > Changes are: > - SPMC (small or scalar PMC) with half the size of a