Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

TLB

by

For many years now, processors have been working not with physical memory addresses, but with virtual addresses. Among other advantages, this approach lets more memory be allocated to a program than the computer actually has, keeping only the data necessary at a given moment in actual physical memory with the rest remaining on the hard disk. This means that for each memory access a virtual address has to be translated into a physical address, and to do that an enormous table is put in charge of keeping track of the correspondences. The problem is that this table gets so large that it can’t be stored on-chip—it’s placed in main memory, and can even be paged (part of the table can be absent from memory and itself kept on the hard disk).

If this translation stage were necessary at each memory access, it would make access much too slow. As a result, engineers returned to the principle of physical addressing by adding a small cache memory directly on the processor that stored the correspondences for a few recently accessed addresses. This cache memory is called a Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB). Intel has completely revamped the operation of the TLB in their new architecture. Up until now, the Core 2 has used a level 1 TLB that is extremely small (16 entries) but also very fast for loads only, and a larger level 2 TLB (256 entries) that handled loads missed in the level 1 TLB, as well as stores.

Nehalem now has a true two-level TLB: the first level of TLB is shared between data and instructions. The level 1 data TLB now stores 64 entries for small pages (4K) or 32 for large pages (2M/4M), while the level 1 instruction TLB stores 128 entries for small pages (the same as with Core 2) and seven for large pages. The second level is a unified cache that can store up to 512 entries and operates only with small pages. The purpose of this improvement is to increase the performance of applications that use large sets of data. As with the introduction of two-level branch predictors, this is further evidence of the architecture’s server orientation.

Let’s go back to SMT for a moment, since it also has an impact on the TLBs. The level 1 data TLB and the level 2 TLB are shared dynamically between the two threads. Conversely, the level 1 instruction TLB is statically shared for small pages, whereas the one dedicated to large pages is entirely replicated—this is understandable given its small size (seven entries per thread).

Share:
13
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
americanbrian 14/10/2008 10:36
Hide
-1+

While undoubtedly this will create a whole new level of performance. I imagine it will be prohibitively expensive. Coming in just as the global economy hits a trough.

For this reason I think AMD has a brighter future when it releases it's new 45nm cores. They will provide a good performance increase and I am willing to bet will still trump intel on the price/performace scale.

mi1ez 14/10/2008 11:05
Hide
-0+

Fantastic article, very insightful.

M_Taylor40 14/10/2008 11:37
Hide
-0+

First off, I have not read the entire article but I just want to comment on the name.
I've been saying this since they announced the design of Nehalem, its Intels take on AMD design, which means your getting the best of both companies as AMD designs have been so much better than Intel but AMD could not challenge what Intel already had.
It's been a long time coming for Intel to adopt AMD's designs but I really do look forward to the release (Well 6 months after when I might be able to afford a Core i7 system!), but feel AMD really needs to pull something out the hat to compete.
Anyways, from what I have read, its a good article lol.

goozaymunanos 14/10/2008 15:45
Hide
-0+

good...progress!

btw, where's the 8-core systems we were promised for 2008?

..and where's all the re complied apps to take advantage of all this processing parallelism?!



p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum

ErikO 14/10/2008 17:28
Hide
-0+

My credit card is restless...

Anonymous 14/10/2008 19:04
Hide
-1+

just hope the bank is still around to honour your credit card... :D

bobwya 14/10/2008 19:14
Hide
-0+

Now that's more like it!! A well informed article, that is well written and imparts some useful information... More of the same please THG!!

I'm just off to sell those AMD shares...

Bob

jammydodger 15/10/2008 14:46
Hide
-0+

While the article is sound, it did upset me the at the first two pages talk about the 'Conroe' architecture. 'Core 2' is the name of the architecture used in the Conroe line of processors. 'Conroe' is the name given to the first desktop iteration of the core2 architecture, just as Allendale is the value version and Kentsfield the quad core version (along with all the new iterations that utilize different cache sizes or manufacturing process).

It is difficult to inspire confidence in your readers when such obvious mistakes are apparent.

KingGreatYat 16/10/2008 10:59
Hide
-0+

Jammydodger : I think the usage may be a little off, but to say the conroe architecture, just means the uarch used by the conroe chips - which is in common with all chips of the generation. Also, the architecture was refered to by the code name Merom . Core 2 is a retail brand name. Either way, this is a minor mistake and not something that would make me doubt the validity of the article.

szilu2002 16/10/2008 16:26
Hide
-0+

at last a quality oriented article!!!
Complete and detailed i want to see more in the future!

jammydodger 16/10/2008 23:22
Hide
-0+

KingGreatYat: I do realise that I could be seen to be splitting hairs, but when an article goes in to such detail about an upcoming processor architecture but begins the article by failing to recognise the distinction between an architecture and a core then it does raise the question of whether the writer has fully understood what it is that he is trying to impart upon us. If I were to begin an article by talking about intel's 'Northwood' architecture then I would be talking non-sense, Northwood was a chip based around Intel's 'Netburst' architecture. The Merom is, as far as I am aware, the first mobile variant of the Core2 architecture, it was proceeded by the Yonah based on Intel's 'Core' architecture, which was itself based on the 'P6' architecture.

krisna159 20/10/2008 08:14
Hide
-0+

competition is good for the market,end user like us have many choises to pick,AMD or intel.i agreed with americanbrian.lets wait the counter attack from AMD with the lates technologies n off course with lowest price.

geoffy 15/11/2008 19:27
Hide
-0+

[quote=Article]Intel says the problem is solved now, but provides no details on the operation of the new prefetch algorithms[/quote]

Something tells me this is going to be pivotal if Deneb proves to be any good...

Great article, by the way, minor niggles aside!

Best offers

Newsletters


OK