Re: Inconsistencies in 3dNOW handling

From: Yann Dirson (ydirson@altern.org)
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 14:25:33 EST


On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 08:57:29AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The test11pre2 code will also not run on a K6-II/III

I'll look at this.

> Some of the "MMX" instructions are part of "3Dnow" according to AMD
> publications. This is especially true for the "prefetch" instructions which
> have a different memnonic/opcode on Intel CPU's.

If we don't use them on pure MMX-enabled machine, but only on 3Dnow
ones, what about renaming those *mmx* {files,funcs} to *3dnow* ?

> > > - BTW, what does this 512 stand for ? Especially as it's used in
> > several places, a #define would seem nice at first glance.
>
> The 512 is a rough estimate of the minimum size of the copy that makes it
> worth saving and restoring the extra processor-state for using mmx.

What about "#define MMX_MIN_ACCELERATED_COPYSIZE 512" in mmx.h ?

Er... s/MMX/3DNOW/ :)

Hm, noone commented my note about usercopy.c's 3dnow code being
possibly fixed by cut-and paste from elsewhere ?

Regards,

-- 
Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
                                    | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://ydirson.free.fr/             | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:00:26 EST