# Tutorial 0D - Cache Performance

Now that we finally have virtual memory capabilities available, we also have
fine grained control over `cacheability`. You've caught a glimpse already in the
last tutorial, where we used page table entries to reference the `MAIR_EL1`
register to indicate the cacheability of a page or block.

Unfortunately, for the user it is often hard to grasp the advantage of caching
in early stages of OS or bare-metal software development. This tutorial is a
short interlude that tries to give you a feeling of what caching can do for
performance.

## Benchmark

Let's write a tiny, arbitrary micro-benchmark to showcase the performance of
operating with data on the same DRAM with caching enabled and disabled.

### mmu.rs

Therefore, we will map the same physical memory via two different virtual
addresses. We set up our pagetables such that the virtual address `0x200000`
points to the physical DRAM at `0x400000`, and we configure it as
`non-cacheable` in the page tables.

We are still using a `2 MiB` granule, and set up the next block, which starts at
virtual `0x400000`, to point at physical `0x400000` (this is an identity mapped
block). This time, the block is configured as cacheable.

### benchmark.rs

We write a little function that iteratively reads memory of five times the size
of a `cacheline`, in steps of 8 bytes, aka one processor register at a time. We
read the value, add 1, and write it back. This whole process is repeated
`20_000` times.

The benchmark function is called twice. Once for the cacheable and once for the
non-cacheable virtual addresses. Remember that both virtual addresses point to
the _same_ physical DRAM, so the difference in time that we will see will
showcase how much faster it is to operate on DRAM with caching enabled.

## Results

On my Raspberry, I get the following results:

```text
Benchmarking non-cacheable DRAM modifications at virtual 0x00200000, physical 0x00400000:
1040 miliseconds.

Benchmarking cacheable DRAM modifications at virtual 0x00400000, physical 0x00400000:
53 miliseconds.

With caching, the function is 1862% faster!
```

Impressive, isn't it?