[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060907170030.GR2558@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:00:30 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>,
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
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 12:00:39PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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.
That's not a problem. As long as they silently discard the writes to
the CLS register, we'll cope. If they decide to flip out, then we have
the no_cls flag.
> If we start configuring CLS automatically, I forsee a period of breakage...
Probably. But it's something we should have done a long time ago.
-
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