[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091014213742.GA17311@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:37:42 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [X86] PCI: Use generic cacheline sizing instead of per-vendor
tests.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:30:54PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:31:39 -0400
> Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of the PCI code needing to have code to determine the
> > cacheline size of each processor, use the data the cpu identification
> > code should have already determined during early boot.
> >
> > (The vendor checks are also incomplete, and don't take into account
> > modern CPUs)
> >
> > I've been carrying a variant of this code in Fedora for a while,
> > that prints debug information. There are a number of cases where we
> > are currently setting the PCI cacheline size to 32 bytes, when the CPU
> > cacheline size is 64 bytes. With this patch, we set them both the
> > same.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> >
>
> Does this improve performance enough to warrant putting it into the
> current cycle? Or is queuing it for 2.6.33 sufficient?
I haven't done any performance testing with/without. My intentions
were purely from a correctness standpoint.
It's not critical, and we've lived with this bug for a long time,
so waiting is fine.
Dave
--
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