[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] add new DMA_ADDR_T_SIZE define
    On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

    > Yes true, storing the two consequetive 32-bit values is better
    > for store buffer compression of the cpu. Using memset is much
    > more inefficient because you push the full set of data once
    > then you push non-compressible stores to the same data through
    > the cpu.
    > I'm not talking out of my ass, I've measured this.

    So is the current wisdom something like "always treat dma_addr_t as a u64
    and be happy"?


    It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
    than to open it and remove all doubt.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.018 / U:37.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site