[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB65D0E.9060004@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:30:38 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
To: "Sosnowski, Maciej" <maciej.sosnowski@...el.com>
CC: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Keping Chen <chenkeping@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND,PATCH] DCA, x86: fix invalid memory access in DCA core
On 05/18/2012 10:10 PM, Sosnowski, Maciej wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, May 10, 2012 3:59 AM, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maciej,
>> I feel we may also need to tune the multiple IOH support in DCA.
>> Multiple IOH support is disabled for CB3.0 devices, how about CB3.1 devices
>> in Ivrbridge or SandyBridge? Does the hardware limitation still exist? Or
>> could we support multiple IOHs with IvyBridge and SandyBridge?
>> If multiple IOH is supported, I think we should move the logic to
>> disable multiple IOH support for CB3.0 from DCA core into ioatdma. I have
>> also prepared two patches for that two.
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> At this point I do not think we would need to tune multiple IOH for DCA.
> The limitation you mention applies only to CB3.0. I do not think DCA is supported
> with Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge regardless of multi-IOH case but let me confirm it
> yet.
It seems that Intel introduces DDIO technology for IvyBridge. Does it replace DCA
technology on new platforms?
Thanks!
>
> Thanks,
> Maciej
--
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