On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 12:33 -0500, Steven Sistare wrote:
> On 2/9/2018 12:08 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Shrug. It's bogus no mater what we do. Once Upon A Time, a cost
> > number was generated via measurement, but the end result was just as
> > bogus as a number pulled out of the ether. How much bandwidth you have
> > when blasting data to/from wherever says nothing about misses you avoid
> > vs those you generate.
> Yes, yes and yes. I cannot make the original tunable less bogus. Using a
> cost for closer caches still makes logical sense and is supported by the data.
You forgot to write "microscopic" before "data" :) I'm mostly agnostic
about this, but don't like the yet more knobs that 99.99% won't touch.