LRU和 Random的比较(失效率) Associativity Two-way Four-way Eight-way Size LRU Random FIFo LRU Randon FIFO 1.RU Random FIFO 16 KB l14.l 1173115.517 115.1113.31090 lL81104 64 KB 1034 104310391024 10231031997 51 103 256KB 92 921 925 921 92192592.1 925 Data Cache misses per 1000 instructions comparing LRU, Random, FIFO replacement for several sizes and associativities These data were collected for a block size of 64 bytes for the Alpha architecture using 10 SPEC2000 benchmarks. Five are from SPECint2000(gap, gcc, gzip, mcf and perl)and five are from SPECfp2000(applu art, equake, lucas and swim) 观察结果(失效率) 相联度高,失效率较低 Cache容量较大,失效率较低 LRU在 Cache容量较小时,失效率较低 随着 Cache容量的加大, Random的失效率在降低 2021-2-4 计算机体系结构LRU和Random的比较（失效率） • 观察结果（失效率） − 相联度高，失效率较低。 − Cache容量较大，失效率较低。 − LRU 在Cache容量较小时，失效率较低 − 随着Cache容量的加大，Random的失效率在降低 2021-2-4 计算机体系结构 35 Data Cache misses per 1000 instructions comparing LRU, Random, FIFO replacement for several sizes and associativities. These data were collected for a block size of 64 bytes for the Alpha architecture using 10 SPEC2000 benchmarks. Five are from SPECint2000(gap, gcc, gzip, mcf and perl) and five are from SPECfp2000(applu, art, equake, lucas and swim)