Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 13:35:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 13:35:50 -0400 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:19440 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 13:35:50 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: References: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: adjust prefetch in free_one_pgd() Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 18:39:11 +0100 Message-ID: <18259.1028396351@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1103 Lines: 29 torvalds@transmeta.com said: > My personal opinion is that if a prefetch has semantic meanings > outside the "speed up subsequent accesses", it should not be exposed > to the rest of the kernel (it might still be useful inside > architecture-specific routines like optimized memcpy etc). Prefetch generally means 'bring it into the cache'. On architectures with non-cache-coherent DMA, doing a prefetch on wild address which happens to be a DMA buffer for which we've just said 'drop it from the cache' is generally a bad thing. Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you -- but can you confirm that you are including all architectures with non-cache-coherent DMA in the 'broken hardware' category below, or point out what I'm missing? > I'd rather speed up non-broken machines and let the broken hardware > hopefully slowly die away. -- dwmw2 - 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/