Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262509AbVCBWgs (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:36:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262555AbVCBWcQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:32:16 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:56209 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262549AbVCBW2g (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:28:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:28:26 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Andries Brouwer Cc: Alan Cox , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove dead cyrix/centaur mtrr init code Message-ID: <20050302222826.GS1512@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Andries Brouwer , Alan Cox , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20050228192001.GA14221@apps.cwi.nl> <1109721162.15795.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050302075037.GH20190@apps.cwi.nl> <20050302080255.GA28512@redhat.com> <1109771140.20986.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050302222106.GI20190@apps.cwi.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050302222106.GI20190@apps.cwi.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1520 Lines: 33 On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:21:06PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:45:43PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Mer, 2005-03-02 at 08:02, Dave Jones wrote: > > > If there are any of them still being used out there, I'd be even > > > more surprised if they're running 2.6. Then again, there are > > > probably loonies out there running it on 386/486's. 8-) > > > > I have one here running 2.4 still. I can test a 2.6 fix for the mtrr > > init happily enough. > > Good. If I understand things correctly - you or davej or someone will > correct me otherwise - failing to initialise mtrr does not break anything, > it would just mean slower access to certain kinds of memory for certain > kinds of access patterns. (Would you test using an X benchmark?) The winchips had a funky feature where you could mark system ram writes as out-of-order. This led to something like a 25% speedup iirc on benchmarks that did lots of memory copying. lmbench showed significant wins iirc, but any results I had saved are long since wiped out in hard disk failures/cruft removal over the years. > Below roughly speaking the same patch as before, but with calls > to the cyrix and centaur mtrr init routines inserted. Looks ok on a quick eyeball. Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/