linux-kernel - Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386

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: <20071106195305.GE1045@1wt.eu>
Date:	Tue, 6 Nov 2007 20:53:05 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
	Bo Brantén <bosse@....umu.se>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:50:13AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >Just out of curiosity, what would be the problem if the MTRRs covered more
> >than the memory size ? For instance, instead of having 512 MB at 4G, why
> >not have 1G at 4G ?
> 
> That's fine, *as long as* you don't have any I/O devices there, 
> including things like UMA graphics devices or memory areas used by SMM. 
>  In theory, those should be marked reserved in e820.  In practice...

OK, thanks Peter for the explanation.

Cheers,
Willy

-
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/