Why is the size of L1 cache smaller than that of the L2 cache in most of the processors?

Question

Why is the size of L1 cache smaller than that of the L2 cache in most of the processors ?

Solution 1

There are different reasons for that.

L2 exists in the system to speedup the case where there is a L1 cache miss. If the size of L1 was the same or bigger than the size of L2, then L2 could not accomodate for more cache lines than L1, and would not be able to deal with L1 cache misses. From the design/cost perspective, L1 cache is bound to the processor and faster than L2. The whole idea of caches is that you speed up access to the slower hardware by adding intermediate hardware that is more performing (and expensive) than the slowest hardware and yet cheaper than the faster hardware you have. Even if you decided to double the L1 cache, you would also increment L2, to speedup L1-cache misses.

So why is there L2 cache at all? Well, L1 cache is usually more performant and expensive to build, and it is bound to a single core. This means that increasing the L1 size by a fixed quantity will have that cost multiplied by 4 in a dual core processor, or by 8 in a quad core. L2 is usually shared by different cores --depending on the architecture it can be shared across a couple or all cores in the processor, so the cost of increasing L2 would be smaller even if the price of L1 and L2 were the same --which it is not.

Solution 2

L1 is very tightly coupled to the CPU core, and is accessed on every memory access (very frequent). Thus, it needs to return the data really fast (usually within on clock cycle). Latency and throughput (bandwidth) are both performance-critical for L1 data cache. (e.g. four cycle latency, and supporting two reads and one write by the CPU core every clock cycle). It needs lots of read/write ports to support this high access bandwidth. Building a large cache with these properties is impossible. Thus, designers keep it small, e.g. 32KB in most processors today.

L2 is accessed only on L1 misses, so accesses are less frequent (usually 1/20th of the L1). Thus, L2 can have higher latency (e.g. from 10 to 20 cycles) and have fewer ports. This allows designers to make it bigger.

---

L1 and L2 play very different roles. If L1 is made bigger, it will increase L1 access latency which will drastically reduce performance because it will make all dependent loads slower and harder for out-of-order execution to hide. L1 size is barely debatable.

If we removed L2, L1 misses will have to go to the next level, say memory. This means that a lot of access will be going to memory which would imply we need more memory bandwidth, which is already a bottleneck. Thus, keeping the L2 around is favorable.

Experts often refer to L1 as a latency filter (as it makes the common case of L1 hits faster) and L2 as a bandwidth filter as it reduces memory bandwidth usage.

Note: I have assumed a 2-level cache hierarchy in my argument to make it simpler. In many of today's multicore chips, there's an L3 cache shared between all the cores, while each core has its own private L1 and maybe L2. In these chips, the shared last-level cache (L3) plays the role of memory bandwidth filter. L2 plays the role of on-chip bandwidth filter, i.e. it reduces access to the on-chip interconnect and the L3. This allows designers to use a lower-bandwidth interconnect like a ring, and a slow single-port L3, which allows them to make L3 bigger.

Perhaps worth mentioning that the number of ports is a very important design point because it affects how much chip area the cache consumes. Ports add wires to the cache which consumes a lot of chip area and power.

Solution 3

@Aater's answer explains some of the basics. I'll add some more details + an examples of the real cache organization on Intel Haswell and AMD Piledriver, with latencies and other properties, not just size.

For some details on IvyBridge, see my answer on "How can cache be that fast?", with some discussion of the overall load-use latency including address-calculation time, and widths of the data busses between different levels of cache.

---

L1 needs to be very fast (latency and throughput), even if that means a limited hit-rate. L1d also needs to support single-byte stores on almost all architectures, and (in some designs) unaligned accesses. This makes it hard to use ECC (error correction codes) to protect the data, and in fact some L1d designs (Intel) just use parity, with better ECC only in outer levels of cache (L2/L3) where the ECC can be done on larger chunks for lower overhead.

It's impossible to design a single level of cache that could provide the low average request latency (averaged over all hits and misses) of a modern multi-level cache. Since modern systems have multiple very hungry cores all sharing a connection to the same relatively-high latency DRAM, this is essential.

Every core needs its own private L1 for speed, but at least the last level of cache is typically shared, so a multi-threaded program that reads the same data from multiple threads doesn't have to go to DRAM for it on each core. (And to act as a backstop for data written by one core and read by another). This requires at least two levels of cache for a sane multi-core system, and is part of the motivation for more than 2 levels in current designs. Modern multi-core x86 CPUs have a fast 2-level cache in each core, and a larger slower cache shared by all cores.

L1 hit-rate is still very important, so L1 caches are not as small / simple / fast as they could be, because that would reduce hit rates. Achieving the same overall performance would thus require higher levels of cache to be faster. If higher levels handle more traffic, their latency is a bigger component of the average latency, and they bottleneck on their throughput more often (or need higher throughput).

High throughput often means being able to handle multiple reads and writes every cycle, i.e. multiple ports. This takes more area and power for the same capacity as a lower-throughput cache, so that's another reason for L1 to stay small.

---

L1 also uses speed tricks that wouldn't work if it was larger. i.e. most designs use Virtually-Indexed, Physically Tagged (VIPT) L1, but with all the index bits coming from below the page offset so they behave like PIPT (because the low bits of a virtual address are the same as in the physical address). This avoids synonyms / homonyms (false hits or the same data being in the cache twice, and see Paul Clayton's detailed answer on the linked question), but still lets part of the hit/miss check happen in parallel with the TLB lookup. A VIVT cache doesn't have to wait for the TLB, but it has to be invalidated on every change to the page tables.

On x86 (which uses 4kiB virtual memory pages), 32kiB 8-way associative L1 caches are common in modern designs. The 8 tags can be fetched based on the low 12 bits of the virtual address, because those bits are the same in virtual and physical addresses (they're below the page offset for 4kiB pages). This speed-hack for L1 caches only works if they're small enough and associative enough that the index doesn't depend on the TLB result. 32kiB / 64B lines / 8-way associativity = 64 (2^6) sets. So the lowest 6 bits of an address select bytes within a line, and the next 6 bits index a set of 8 tags. This set of 8 tags is fetched in parallel with the TLB lookup, so the tags can be checked in parallel against the physical-page selection bits of the TLB result to determine which (if any) of the 8 ways of the cache hold the data. (Minimum associativity for a PIPT L1 cache to also be VIPT, accessing a set without translating the index to physical)

Making a larger L1 cache would mean it had to either wait for the TLB result before it could even start fetching tags and loading them into the parallel comparators, or it would have to increase in associativity to keep log2(sets) + log2(line_size) <= 12. (More associativity means more ways per set => fewer total sets = fewer index bits). So e.g. a 64kiB cache would need to be 16-way associative: still 64 sets, but each set has twice as many ways. This makes increasing L1 size beyond the current size prohibitively expensive in terms of power, and probably even latency.

Spending more of your power budget on L1D cache logic would leave less power available for out-of-order execution, decoding, and of course L2 cache and so on. Getting the whole core to run at 4GHz and sustain ~4 instructions per clock (on high-ILP code) without melting requires a balanced design. See this article: Modern Microprocessors: A 90-Minute Guide!.

The larger a cache is, the more you lose by flushing it, so a large VIVT L1 cache would be worse than the current VIPT-that-works-like-PIPT. And a larger but higher-latency L1D would probably also be worse.

According to @PaulClayton, L1 caches often fetch all the data in a set in parallel with the tags, so it's there ready to be selected once the right tag is detected. The power cost of doing this scales with associativity, so a large highly-associative L1 would be really bad for power-use as well as die-area (and latency). (Compared to L2 and L3, it wouldn't be a lot of area, but physical proximity is important for latency. Speed-of-light propagation delays matter when clock cycles are 1/4 of a nanosecond.)

Slower caches (like L3) can run at a lower voltage / clock speed to make less heat. They can even use different arrangements of transistors for each storage cell, to make memory that's more optimized for power than for high speed.

There are a lot of power-use related reasons for multi-level caches. Power / heat is one of the most important constraints in modern CPU design, because cooling a tiny chip is hard. Everything is a tradeoff between speed and power (and/or die area). Also, many CPUs are powered by batteries or are in data-centres that need extra cooling.

---

L1 is almost always split into separate instruction and data caches. Instead of an extra read port in a unified L1 to support code-fetch, we can have a separate L1I cache tied to a separate I-TLB. (Modern CPUs often have an L2-TLB, which is a second level of cache for translations that's shared by the L1 I-TLB and D-TLB, NOT a TLB used by the regular L2 cache). This gives us 64kiB total of L1 cache, statically partitioned into code and data caches, for much cheaper (and probably lower latency) than a monster 64k L1 unified cache with the same total throughput. Since there is usually very little overlap between code and data, this is a big win.

L1I can be placed physically close to the code-fetch logic, while L1D can be physically close to the load/store units. Speed-of-light transmission-line delays are a big deal when a clock cycle lasts only 1/3rd of a nanosecond. Routing the wiring is also a big deal: e.g. Intel Broadwell has 13 layers of copper above the silicon.

Split L1 helps a lot with speed, but unified L2 is the best choice. Some workloads have very small code but touch lots of data. It makes sense for higher-level caches to be unified to adapt to different workloads, instead of statically partitioning into code vs. data. (e.g. almost all of L2 will be caching data, not code, while running a big matrix multiply, vs. having a lot of code hot while running a bloated C++ program, or even an efficient implementation of a complicated algorithm (e.g. running gcc)). Code can be copied around as data, not always just loaded from disk into memory with DMA.

---

Caches also need logic to track outstanding misses (since out-of-order execution means that new requests can keep being generated before the first miss is resolved). Having many misses outstanding means you overlap the latency of the misses, achieving higher throughput. Duplicating the logic and/or statically partitioning between code and data in L2 would not be good.

Larger lower-traffic caches are also a good place to put pre-fetching logic. Hardware pre-fetching enables good performance for things like looping over an array without every piece of code needing software-prefetch instructions. (SW prefetch was important for a while, but HW prefetchers are smarter than they used to be, so that advice in Ulrich Drepper's otherwise excellent What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory is out-of-date for many use cases.)

Low-traffic higher level caches can afford the latency to do clever things like use an adaptive replacement policy instead of the usual LRU. Intel IvyBridge and later CPUs do this, to resist access patterns that get no cache hits for a working set just slightly too large to fit in cache. (e.g. looping over some data in the same direction twice means it probably gets evicted just before it would be reused.)

---

A real example: Intel Haswell. Sources: David Kanter's microarchitecture analysis and Agner Fog's testing results (microarch pdf). See also Intel's optimization manuals (links in the x86 tag wiki).

Also, I wrote up a separate answer on: Which cache mapping technique is used in intel core i7 processor?

Modern Intel designs use a large inclusive L3 cache shared by all cores as a backstop for cache-coherence traffic. It's physically distributed between the cores, with 2048 sets * 16-way (2MiB) per core (with an adaptive replacement policy in IvyBridge and later).

The lower levels of cache are per-core.

• L1: per-core 32kiB each instruction and data (split), 8-way associative. Latency = 4 cycles. At least 2 read ports + 1 write port. (Maybe even more ports to handle traffic between L1 and L2, or maybe receiving a cache line from L2 conflicts with retiring a store.) Can track 10 outstanding cache misses (10 fill buffers).
• L2: unified per-core 256kiB, 8-way associative. Latency = 11 or 12 cycles. Read bandwidth: 64 bytes / cycle. The main prefetching logic prefetches into L2. Can track 16 outstanding misses. Can supply 64B per cycle to the L1I or L1D. Actual port counts unknown.
• L3: unified, shared (by all cores) 8MiB (for a quad-core i7). Inclusive (of all the L2 and L1 per-core caches). 12 or 16 way associative. Latency = 34 cycles. Acts as a backstop for cache-coherency, so modified shared data doesn't have to go out to main memory and back.

---

Another real example: AMD Piledriver: (e.g. Opteron and desktop FX CPUs.) Cache-line size is still 64B, like Intel and AMD have used for several years now. Text mostly copied from Agner Fog's microarch pdf, with additional info from some slides I found, and more details on the write-through L1 + 4k write-combining cache on Agner's blog, with a comment that only L1 is WT, not L2.

• L1I: 64 kB, 2-way, shared between a pair of cores (AMD's version of SMD has more static partitioning than Hyperthreading, and they call each one a core. Each pair shares a vector / FPU unit, and other pipeline resources.)
• L1D: 16 kB, 4-way, per core. Latency = 3-4 c. (Notice that all 12 bits below the page offset are still used for index, so the usual VIPT trick works.) (throughput: two operations per clock, up to one of them being a store). Policy = Write-Through, with a 4k write-combining cache.
• L2: 2 MB, 16-way, shared between two cores. Latency = 20 clocks. Read throughput 1 per 4 clock. Write throughput 1 per 12 clock.
• L3: 0 - 8 MB, 64-way, shared between all cores. Latency = 87 clock. Read throughput 1 per 15 clock. Write throughput 1 per 21 clock

Agner Fog reports that with both cores of a pair active, L1 throughput is lower than when the other half of a pair is idle. It's not known what's going on, since the L1 caches are supposed to be separate for each core.

Solution 4

The other answers here give specific and technical reasons why L1 and L2 are sized as they are, and while many of them are motivating considerations for particular architectures, they aren't really necessary: the underlying architectural pressure leading to increasing (private) cache sizes as you move away from the core is fairly universal and is the same as the reasoning for multiple caches in the first place.

The three basic facts are:

1. The memory accesses for most applications exhibit a high degree of temporal locality, with a non-uniform distribution.
2. Across a large variety of process and designs, cache size and cache speed (latency and throughput) can be traded off against each other¹.
3. Each distinct level of cache involves incremental design and performance cost.

So at a basic level, you might be able to say double the size of the cache, but incur a latency penalty of 1.4 compared to the smaller cache.

So it becomes an optimization problem: how many caches should you have and how large should they be? If memory access was totally uniform within the working set size, you'd probably end up with a single fairly large cache, or no cache at all. However, access is strongly non-uniform, so a small-and-fast cache can capture a large number of accesses, disproportionate to it's size.

If fact 2 didn't exist, you'd just create a very big, very fast L1 cache within the other constraints of your chip and not need any other cache levels.

If fact 3 didn't exist, you'd end up with a huge number of fine-grained "caches", faster and small at the center, and slower and larger outside, or perhaps a single cache with variable access times: faster for the parts closest to the core. In practice, rule 3 means that each level of cache has an additional cost, so you usually end up with a few quantized levels of cache².

Other Constraints

This gives a basic framework to understand cache count and cache sizing decisions, but there are secondary factors at work as well. For example, Intel x86 has 4K page sizes and their L1 caches use a VIPT architecture. VIPT means that the size of the cache divided by the number of ways cannot be larger³ than 4 KiB. So an 8-way L1 cache as used on the half dozen Intel designs can be at most 4 KiB * 8 = 32 KiB. It is probably no coincidence that that's exactly the size of the L1 cache on those designs! If it weren't for this constraint, it is entirely possible you'd have seen lower-associativity and/or larger L1 caches (e.g., 64 KiB, 4-way).

---

¹ Of course, there are other factors involved in the tradeoff as well, such as area and power, but holding those factors constant the size-speed tradeoff applies, and even if not held constant the basic behavior is the same.

² In addition to this pressure, there is a scheduling benefit to known-latency caches, like most L1 designs: and out-of-order scheduler can optimistically submit operations that depend on a memory load on the cycle that the L1 cache would return, reading the result off the bypass network. This reduces contention and perhaps shaves a cycle of latency off the critical path. This puts some pressure on the innermost cache level to have uniform/predictable latency and probably results in fewer cache levels.

³ In principle, you can use VIPT caches without this restriction, but only by requiring OS support (e.g., page coloring) or with other constraints. The x86 arch hasn't done that and probably can't start now.

Solution 5

For those interested in this type of questions, my university recommends Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach and Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface. Of course, if you don't have time for this, a quick overview is available on Wikipedia.

View more solutions

Comments

[Karthik Balaguru]

@Chiffre : Do you mean to say that the L1-cache and L2-cache are made of different memory technology ?

[David Rodríguez - dribeas]

@S.Man: Yes, the cost of each cache type is different than the rest. In general performance and cost goes like: L1 > L2 > [L3 >] main memory. Else you would build up everything with the fastest technology you have at the same cost. That would not make L1 size bigger than L2, but just remove L2 altogether and build L1 with the cumulative size of L1+L2.

[David Rodríguez - dribeas]

@S.Man: For a single core, if performance (and cost, you would pay for the cheaper technology that provided the performance) of L1 and L2 were the same, then having a 1M L1 and 2M L2 would have the same cost as having a 3M L1 and no L2 altogether. With triple the cache size, the number of cache misses would be smaller and the system faster at the same cost.

[basti]

If you willing to spend some time in this topic, I would recommend you to read over in this wikipedia-article: secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/… there is even a rather good diagram of multi-level-memory structures!

[Karthik Balaguru]

@David: Provided the fastest technology is used for L1 & L2 , it is a Nice idea to remove L2 altogether and have a larger L1 alone !

[basti]

@S.Man: But in times of multi-core-cpus you need L2-cache for managing the load distribution on the different cores. Because as far as I know, the L1 is per core and L2 is per cpu.

[Lyuben Todorov]

May I also recommend Computer Organization and Architecture, Eight Edition. by William Stallings (chapter 4).

[Fascia]

I know this is an old answer but, doubling the L1 cache will double the cost regardless of the quantity of cache or number of cores.

[David Rodríguez - dribeas]

@Fascia: You are completely right (what would my math teachers say today!). I have tried to reword it to the intended meaning: the cost of increasing L1 is multiplied by the number of cores as it is not shared.

[arunmoezhi]

@DavidRodríguez-dribeas: I did not mean to say you were wrong. ` L2 exists to speedup the case where L1 cache misses` is more clear than L2 exists in the system to speedup cache misses in L1. I thought speedup cache misses is kind of misleading.

[David Rodríguez - dribeas]

@arunmoezhi: I understand, I was hoping for suggestions on how to rewrite it, not realizing that the comment already had one such suggestion. I have updated the answer.

[FreeAsInBeer]

-1 Your answer assumes a basic understand of CPU caching, which may not be the case for many interested readers. Furthermore, it doesn't add any additional value to the current answers.

[Ciro Santilli OurBigBook.com]

What is the physical construction of L1 and what makes it more expensive / faster than L2? This answer explains it a bit: superuser.com/a/724537/128124

[Peter Cordes]

I edited in a correction for the numbers in two places (a one-cycle latency L1 would have to be VIVT, and much simpler), but ended up writing my own answer to say everything I wanted to. See my answer for more details, and real numbers for latency / size / associativity for real AMD and Intel CPUs. Their cache heirarchies are very different.

[Peter Cordes]

L2 could be a highly-associative victim cache to reduce the penalty for conflict misses in L1. (Especially if L1 is simple, e.g. direct-mapped). In this case an L2 could be useful even if it's significantly smaller than L1.

[St.Antario]

I went through a description of leaf 0x02 of cpuid and noticed that there were no any data/instruction split for 2nd and 3rd caches. So all current x86 CPU have "unified" 2nd and 3rd caches?

[Peter Cordes]

@St.Antario: yes, of course. I thought that was a well-known fact. That's why this answer uses L1I / L1D but only ever L2 or L3. Split L1 gives you more bandwidth for code and data fetch, and is basically a bandwidth filter for the larger slower outer caches. I've never heard of any CPUs using split caches farther than L1, even outside of x86. e.g. What does a 'Split' cache means. And how is it useful(if it is)? defines "modified Harvard" in terms of split L1 and unified rest of the memory hierarchy because nobody uses split L2.