Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760866AbZJNVb5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:31:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760650AbZJNVb4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:31:56 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-311.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.4]:53771 "HELO outbound-mail-311.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760638AbZJNVb4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:31:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=FEwumhY2hRQnAvOZ74aYCaIOMmseWmz+I2WwUhz3+iD5pVQsjHlG++LMTyv12WEYMK1TRU4AsLccY164ts55DOqFiFVl6e67hamWrKrdSBpnGknwFx/C0kjT466b7BOH; Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:30:54 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Dave Jones Cc: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [X86] PCI: Use generic cacheline sizing instead of per-vendor tests. Message-ID: <20091014143054.76874f30@jbarnes-g45> In-Reply-To: <20091014203139.GA2336@redhat.com> References: <20091014203139.GA2336@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.17.5; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.28.251 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 30 On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:31:39 -0400 Dave Jones 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 > Does this improve performance enough to warrant putting it into the current cycle? Or is queuing it for 2.6.33 sufficient? Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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/