Re: [RFC] generic device DMA implementation
David Gibson (email@example.com)
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:06:06 +1100
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:17:55PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> David Gibson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > It seems the "try to get consistent memory, but otherwise give me
> > inconsistent" is only useful on machines which:
> > (1) Are not fully consisent, BUT
> > (2) Can get consistent memory without disabling the cache, BUT
> > (3) Not very much of it, so you might run out.
> > The point is, there has to be an advantage to using consistent memory
> > if it is available AND the possibility of it not being available.
> > Are there actually any machines with the properties described above?
> As I mentioned in my previous message, one of my platforms is like that
> memory, which is only 2 megabytes in size.
Ok, that starts to make sense then (what platform is it,
incidentally). Is using consistent memory actually faster than doing
the cache flushes expliticly? Much?
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
email@example.com | solution which is simple, neat and
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/