Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752939AbZJTUfU (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:35:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752912AbZJTUfT (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:35:19 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate01.web.de ([217.72.192.221]:58623 "EHLO fmmailgate01.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752851AbZJTUfS (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:35:18 -0400 From: Thomas Schlichter To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] use MTRR for write combining if PAT is not available Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:35:12 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.28.10-bigboss; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; ) Cc: Jan Beulich , Suresh Siddha , arjan@linux.intel.com, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, hancockrwd@gmail.com, hmh@hmh.eng.br, hpa@zytor.com, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, thellstrom@vmware.com, tj@kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, yinghai@kernel.org References: <1392906098@web.de> <20091019153134.GA18198@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20091019153134.GA18198@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200910202235.12277.thomas.schlichter@web.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/r+L9xvgFicUriLvHhk1ftoFdr2YSYU5xoEatw TDxf1HZI6jYSpHnxBazugliZZIkr1HmXFaKu6pV/VfzA+MSOIJ 4EjO8p6XfNKoSD90fJyQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 978 Lines: 28 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Thomas Schlichter 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/