| 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: <20080218185228.GA29026@one.firstfloor.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:52:28 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.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 > I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This is why Interesting. > the folks who care about performance (the graphics guys) stopped using it. I didn't know this. What do they do instead? I understand that WC was added originally because AGP was really slow at IO towards the CPU. You mean on PCI-E it is fast enough now that standard cached WB works well enough? > 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. At least the X server still uses it. In fact there are already some performance regression regarding this from differing kernel behavioun in the sysfs interfaces vs /dev/mem. What would you recommend should the X server use instead? Always map standard WB? How about on older AGP systems? -Andi -- 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