lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Intel x86-64 support merge
From
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:06:58 -0500, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> said:

Bill> David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:40:24 +0100, Arjan van de Ven
>>>>>>> <arjan@fenrus.demon.nl> said:
>>
Arjan> On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 23:57, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >> Because they were caught by surprise and just hacked the chips
>> >> they had in the pipeline, presumably.

Arjan> fair enough; I hope this means the next generation has this
Arjan> wart fixed...
>> I wouldn't hold my breath. My impression was that the Intel
>> chipset folks don't want I/O MMU because (a) Windows doesn't need
>> it and (b) real machines use (close-to-)64-bit-capable hardware.

Bill> Doesn't need it? Does that mean the Win64 uses bounce buffers
Bill> for everything? Or am I totally misreading this?

Remember: I'm just the messenger here...

I have no idea what Win64 does, but obviously bounce buffering is only
an issue for devices that can't address all physical memory. These
days, even relatively low-end machines have devices that can address
"more than enough" physical memory (I'm not sure exactly what the DMA
limit of, say, a Kenai32 e1000 card is, but it's a lot more than 4GB).

--david
-
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 14:01    [W:0.061 / U:1.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site