| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080218093215.5cf611a8@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:32:15 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: Unable to continue testing of 2.6.25 On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:11:59 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > > to do is go via an intermediate UC state and the really expensive > > process from the manual is not needed. > > Ok then you're proposing to use a even more expensive operation just > to patch this over. I guess that will work as long as we assume > none of the callers cares too much about performance, I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This is why the folks who care about performance (the graphics guys) stopped using it. WC is slow, and on modern cpus leads to really bad performance. I'm really half tempted to just ignore WC entirely and suggest that we don't even implement it in the kernel. Yes it's really that bad. -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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