Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)

From: Dan Hollis (goemon@anime.net)
Date: Tue Sep 18 2001 - 22:55:30 EST

Next message: Brian Gerst: "Re: [Q] Implementation of spin_lock on i386: why "rep;nop" ?"
Previous message: Ed Tomlinson: "the Gimp and pre11"
In reply to: Carsten Leonhardt: "Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)"
Next in thread: jury gerold: "Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 16 Sep 2001, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> Roberto Jung Drebes <drebes@inf.ufrgs.br> writes:
> > I tested here and it seems that bit 7 is responsible. Here is the
> > diff to pci-pc.c:
> I tried it here on my Tyan Trinity KT-A (S2390B), and it works!

Has anyone compared memcopy speed with it on and with it off?
Eg does it slow down memory accesses even slower than non-optimized
memcopy?

-Dan

-- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

- 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/

Next message: Brian Gerst: "Re: [Q] Implementation of spin_lock on i386: why "rep;nop" ?"
Previous message: Ed Tomlinson: "the Gimp and pre11"
In reply to: Carsten Leonhardt: "Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)"
Next in thread: jury gerold: "Re: Athlon: Try this (was: Re: Athlon bug stomping #2)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 21:00:28 EST