linux-kernel - Re: question regarding cacheline size

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45004227.8090200@pobox.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:00:39 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
CC:	Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: question regarding cacheline size

Tejun Heo wrote:
> arch/i386/pci/common.c overrides cacheline size to min 32 regardless of 
> actual size.  So, we seem to be using larger cacheline size for MWI 
> already.

It clamps the minimum size to 32, yes, but on modern machines common.c 
configures it to a larger size.


> Jeff pointed out that there actually are devices which limit CLS config. 
>  IMHO, making PCI configure CLS automatically and provide helpers to LLD 
> to override it if necessary should cut it.

We still have to add a raft of quirks, if we start automatically 
configurating CLS...  Also, many PCI devices hardcode it to zero.

If we start configuring CLS automatically, I forsee a period of breakage...

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/