ASAP.
Acked-by: Suresh Siddha suresh.b.sid...@intel.com
While none of the drivers in 2.6.30 use this interface, it will be good
if we backport this to 2.6.30-stable aswell.
Also, now that we have set_pages_array interface, do we still need the
set_memory_array_uc interface? Removing that should
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 02:16 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
Functionality-wise this looks fine to me
If we are going to make ioremap() and set_memory_wc() add mtrr's in
non-pat case, then we need to delete the added mtrr(s) in the
corresponding iounmap() and set_memory_wb() aswell.
hmm, this is
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 08:31 -0700, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Thomas Schlichter thomas.schlich...@web.de wrote:
I don't think this is a good idea, Robert Hancock wrote there may be
millions of such Laptops (Core Solo/Duo erratum AE7, Pentium M erratum
Y31) :
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 13:35 -0700, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
What do you think about the latest version of my patch series I just sent?
I think we can simplify this by just using mtrr_add_page() and avoid
all the complexity that comes with mtrr_add_unaligned().
pci_mmap_range() should call one
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 13:01 -0700, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
OK, so I think the attached patches should do it. Hopefully I have addressed
all your comments.
Thomas,
I have couple of issues with this patchset still. pci_mmap_page_range()
doesn't get called for each fork(). So, we won't be ref
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 05:08 -0700, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
When forking, what happens with the struct file? If it is being copied,
then the
processes share the same private data which would be freed during the first
release(). I think this would be a problem whereever file-private data are
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 05:14 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 10/22/2009 09:08 PM, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
I have couple of issues with this patchset still. pci_mmap_page_range()
doesn't get called for each fork(). So, we won't be ref counting the
mtrr usage properly.
When forking,
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 16:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:47:30 -0700
Suresh Siddha suresh.b.sid...@intel.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 08:34 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
Can we just not create the _wc sysfs entry if we don't have PAT? I
don't think there's
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 18:53 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 17:11 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 16:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:47:30 -0700
Suresh Siddha suresh.b.sid...@intel.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 08:34 -0700
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 08:34 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
Can we just not create the _wc sysfs entry if we don't have PAT? I
don't think there's userland relying on its presence as opposed to the
non-_wc entry.
Yes indeed. Jesse do you see an issue with this? This is simple and
clean. Thanks
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 00:24 -0700, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
Hmm, at this point I already was more than a week ago:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=125537770514713w=2
OK, I also modified ioremap() and set_memory_wc() but your patch is just part
of what I did there...
oops! Sorry I read
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 02:41 -0700, Pauli Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pauli Nieminen suok...@gmail.com wrote:
Setting single memory pages at a time to wc takes a lot time in cache
flush. To
reduce
12 matches
Mail list logo
