386 Motherboards

[Malaclypse the Elder]

In article <MAT.90May3084057 at zeus.megargon.arizona.edu>, mat at zeus.opt-sci.arizona.edu (Mat Watson) writes:
> I've gotten some responses to my posting, and
> I STAND CORRECTED!  Thanks for setting me straight.
> 
> I wrote:
> >   Since *nix swaps entire jobs ( which I assume are larger than the
> >   cache ), doesn't that screw up the hit rate?
> 
> Not True.  I'm told that Unix seldom swaps out entire jobs,
> so the cache actually ends up working pretty well on a single
> user system.
> 
actually, if you consider process switches instead of swaps,
then you have a point.  if the cache is a virtual one, then
process switches will result in cache flushes (unless there
is a process id tag in the cache).  if the cache is a physical
one, then you don't have to worry unless there is either a
process swap, a page replacement, or a process exit.  but in
this case, you are sharing your 64K cache (or whatever size)
with other processes.

danny chen
att!hocus!dwc