Re: [PATCH] remove dead cyrix/centaur mtrr init code

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:21:06PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
 > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:45:43PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
 > > On Mer, 2005-03-02 at 08:02, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > > If there are any of them still being used out there, I'd be even
 > > > more surprised if they're running 2.6.  Then again, there are
 > > > probably loonies out there running it on 386/486's. 8-)
 > > 
 > > I have one here running 2.4 still. I can test a 2.6 fix for the mtrr
 > > init happily enough.
 > 
 > Good. If I understand things correctly - you or davej or someone will
 > correct me otherwise - failing to initialise mtrr does not break anything,
 > it would just mean slower access to certain kinds of memory for certain
 > kinds of access patterns. (Would you test using an X benchmark?)

The winchips had a funky feature where you could mark system ram
writes as out-of-order. This led to something like a 25% speedup iirc
on benchmarks that did lots of memory copying. lmbench showed
significant wins iirc, but any results I had saved are long since
wiped out in hard disk failures/cruft removal over the years.

 > Below roughly speaking the same patch as before, but with calls
 > to the cyrix and centaur mtrr init routines inserted.

Looks ok on a quick eyeball.

		Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/