[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910202235.12277.thomas.schlichter@web.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:35:12 +0200
From: Thomas Schlichter <thomas.schlichter@....de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
hancockrwd@...il.com, hmh@....eng.br, hpa@...or.com,
jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
thellstrom@...are.com, tj@...nel.org,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, x86@...nel.org, yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] use MTRR for write combining if PAT is not available
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Schlichter <thomas.schlichter@....de> wrote:
> > > or Perhaps just try to add mtrr only for the pci mmap case like the
> > > 4th patch in this series..
> >
> > I'd prefer this! ;-)
>
> Hm, we could perhaps do that - but i think we should only do that on
> systems that have PAT disabled.
The patch I sent should do exactly that.
> Which brings up the question of how to properly QA such a narrow segment
> of the market. Maybe disabling CONFIG_X86_PAT should enable that logic
> too.
When CONFIG_X86_PAT is disabled, pat_enabled is 0, and thus my new code should
be active. Or do I miss something?
What do you think about the latest version of my patch series I just sent?
Kind regards,
Thomas
--
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