![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL) |
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/ | ||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.205 / U:0.250 seconds] ©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||