On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:17:55PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> 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 david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:21 EST