[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905270722.13670.lkml@morethan.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 07:22:10 -0500
From: "Michael S. Zick" <lkml@...ethan.org>
To: Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@...tech.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [VIA Support] was: [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic
On Wed May 27 2009, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> On Sun May 24 2009, Harald Welte wrote:
> >
> > Once I understand it in full detail, I can talk to the right people inside
> > CentaurLabs (VIA's CPU division).
> >
> > If somebody (optionally) can phrase a precise technical question that I can
> > directly forward to somebody with low-level x86 knowledge but no Linux background,
> > it would definitely help speeding up the process.
> >
>
> What is the PCI Cache Line size in the CX700? In the CN896?
>
> Ref:
> arch/x86/pci/common.c
>
> As in:
> /*
> * Assume PCI cacheline size of 32 bytes for all x86s except K7/K8
> * and P4. It's also good for 386/486s (which actually have 16)
> * as quite a few PCI devices do not support smaller values.
> */
>
> pci_cache_line_size = 32 >> 2;
> if (c->x86 >= 6 && c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD)
> pci_cache_line_size = 64 >> 2; /* K7 & K8 */
> else if (c->x86 > 6 && c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> pci_cache_line_size = 128 >> 2; /* P4 */
>
> A problem with cache coherency, alignment, or consistency would explain
> the problems I am seeing - and the differences in the test cases.
>
Related speculations:
http://forum.netbookuser.com/viewtopic.php?pid=6987#p6987
Mike
--
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