[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <450042F7.5080202@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:04:07 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
CC: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, 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
Grant Grundler wrote:
> hrm...if the driver can put a safe value in cachelinesize register
> and NOT enable MWI, I can imagine a significant performance boost
> if the device can use MRM or MRL. But IMHO it's up to the driver
> writers (or other contributors) to figure that out.
Yes.
> Current API (pci_set_mwi()) ties enabling MRM/MRL with enabling MWI
> and I don't see a really good reason for that. Only the converse
> is true - enabling MWI requires setting cachelinesize.
Correct, that's why it was done that way, when I wrote the API.
Enabling MWI required making sure the BIOS configured our CLS for us,
which was often not the case. No reason why we can't do a
pdev->set_cls = 1;
rc = pci_enable_device(pdev);
or
rc = pci_set_cacheline_size(pdev);
Regards,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists