[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4815ED15.3080702@zoopnet.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:28:21 +0200
From: Mika Fischer <mika.fischer@...pnet.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, yhlu.kernel@...il.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mtrr cleanup for converting continuous to discrete
layout v2
Arjan van de Ven schrieb:
> yep one should not touch existing MTRRs. If you run out, tough luck.
> Thats what we have PAT for.
> Changing them anyway is a deathtrap with various things, suspend/resume being only
> one of the nasty cases.
Hm. I currently have to remove the offending (i.e. overlapping my video
memory) MTRRs and split them so that they have a hole where my video
memory is.
Only that makes the X server happy, which wants to set up a
write-combining range covering the video memory.
Is there a better workaround?
>> how relevant is this feature with modern Xorg? I thought modern Xorg
>> would get its mappings via /sys, hence it would not have to touch
>> MTRRs at all.
>
> that's true for current X, but not for 6 month old X :=(
Ah, so the new X will be able to use the video memory in write-combining
mode even if I have an MTRR saying this area is uncachable or write-back?
If that is the case, then I agree that this patch is not really needed.
Regards,
Mika
--
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