Talk:Cache placement policies

Advantages/disadvantages of the fully associative cache wrong?

I think some of the advantages/disadvantages of the fully associative cache are wrong: The cache lines are never iterated over, all checks happen at the same time in logical circuits. Therefore it is not true that a fully associative cache is slower than a not-fully associative one. 2A02:120B:2C3E:F0E0:FFFA:9FD3:2E9F:30AB (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that its slower, since the comparators of the cache would take the same time no matter how many of them are there, since they are all in parallel. It comes down to how expensive it is to produce, since the amount of hardware needed to get the cache line in which to write does not justify the miniscule difference of hit rate compared to less associative caches. 2001:690:2100:1016:58E2:11CC:8B2C:3C70 (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix this? This article is misleading. Associative caches (fully or set-associative) are not searched sequentially as others have noted. 71.168.238.64 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the last line of the Example section?

Last line of the Example section has a typo I think.

4. Address 0x0100 (tag – 0b000_0001, index – 0b0_0000, offset – 0b00) corresponds to block 64 of the memory and maps to the set 0 of the cache.//typo in tag

4. Address 0x0100 (tag – 0b000_0010, index – 0b0_0000, offset – 0b00) corresponds to block 64 of the memory and maps to the set 0 of the cache.//tag corrected. 192.19.247.250 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that's the Example subsection of the "Set-associative cache" section. Guy Harris (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@192.19.247.250 @Guy Harris a typo indeed. I went ahead and fixed it (and removed the disputed tag). Thanks. Ptrnext (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Useful Articles

I found that the associativity concepts are quite well described and depicted in "Memory Caching Schemes", Personal Workstation, June 1989. --PaulBoddie (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]