On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The "or any other emulator" is exactly where my question is directed at.
>
> Xen, KVM or even qemu come into my mind, but considering how loudly you
> complained about a temporary breakage for VirtualBox there must be a
> reason why your work on the
On Sunday 17 February 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:38:51 -0600 Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adrian wrote:
> > > So let's fix the problem (kernel lacks functionality)
> >
> > That's the problem as understood by Adrian.
> >
> > I hear another problem as well .
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:55:01PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The real problem is that the kernel seems to lack functionality you
> > require for doing some work.
>
> Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
>
> > Why does your work on the Debian
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 22:55 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The real problem is that the kernel seems to lack functionality you
> > require for doing some work.
>
> Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
>
> > Why does your work on the Debian Instal
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:55:01 +0100
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The real problem is that the kernel seems to lack functionality you
> > require for doing some work.
>
> Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
>
> > Why does your work
On Sunday 17 February 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The real problem is that the kernel seems to lack functionality you
> require for doing some work.
Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
> Why does your work on the Debian Installer depend on VirtualBox and
> can't be done with what the kernel
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:18:48AM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > AFAIK mapping PCI memory WB is not allowed, so WC is really our only
> > > choice.
>
> > afaik that depends on the BAR being prefetchable or not.
>
> In my case the BAR is prefetchable.
Even if the BAR is prefetchable, on so
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:18:41PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This
> > > is why
> >
> > Interesting.
>
> does this refresh your memory:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/10/99
I'
> if you mean 'framebuffer' with mmio space, they stopped using it there
> as well afaik.
And also bursting commands to mmio fifos - eg the 3Dfx where it makes a
*huge* difference.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL P
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This
> > is why
>
> Interesting.
does this refresh your memory:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/10/99
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
> > AFAIK mapping PCI memory WB is not allowed, so WC is really our only
> > choice.
> afaik that depends on the BAR being prefetchable or not.
In my case the BAR is prefetchable.
> (and by your argument, ioremap_cached() would not be useful, and since that
> was, until
> 2.6.25-rc1, the
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:53:42 -0800
Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAIK mapping PCI memory WB is not allowed, so WC is really our only
> choice.
afaik that depends on the BAR being prefetchable or not.
(and by your argument, ioremap_cached() would not be useful, and since that
was,
> I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This is why
> the folks who care about performance (the graphics guys) stopped using it.
> WC is slow, and on modern cpus leads to really bad performance. I'm really
> half tempted to just ignore WC entirely and suggest that we do
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:40:50 +
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This
> > is why the folks who care about performance (the graphics guys)
> > stopped using it.
>
> WC for main memory or WC for mmio spaces ?
if you mean 'fra
> I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This is why
> the folks who care about performance (the graphics guys) stopped using it.
WC for main memory or WC for mmio spaces ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:52:28 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This
> > is why
>
> Interesting.
>
> > the folks who care about performance (the graphics guys) stopped
> > using it.
>
> I didn't know this. What do they
> I've yet to see a user who wants WC. Lets face it, WC *sucks*. This is why
Interesting.
> the folks who care about performance (the graphics guys) stopped using it.
I didn't know this. What do they do instead?
I understand that WC was added originally because AGP was really slow
at IO toward
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:11:59 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > to do is go via an intermediate UC state and the really expensive
> > process from the manual is not needed.
>
> Ok then you're proposing to use a even more expensive operation just
> to patch this over. I guess that will
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:50:18AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:31:48 +0100
> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > the initial plan was for a depreciation period. Sadly it was
> > > untenable since the API w
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:31:48 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > the initial plan was for a depreciation period. Sadly it was
> > untenable since the API was changing entirely to fix bugs and add a
> > really important feature (the abi
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> the initial plan was for a depreciation period. Sadly it was untenable since
> the API
> was changing entirely to fix bugs and add a really important feature
> (the ability to clflush the exact range rather than wbinvd'ing the caches of
> all cpus
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Tilman Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:24:56 +0100
>
>> No, that's not the real problem. Even if the kernel didn't lack
>> any required functionality and it could all be done today without
>> VirtualBox, pulling the rug from
David Miller schrieb:
From: Tilman Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:24:56 +0100
No, that's not the real problem. Even if the kernel didn't lack
any required functionality and it could all be done today without
VirtualBox, pulling the rug from underneath it like that leaves
From: Tilman Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:24:56 +0100
> No, that's not the real problem. Even if the kernel didn't lack
> any required functionality and it could all be done today without
> VirtualBox, pulling the rug from underneath it like that leaves
> all those who are
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:38:51 -0600
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > So let's fix the problem (kernel lacks functionality)
>
> That's the problem as understood by Adrian.
>
> I hear another problem as well ...
>
> Frans wrote:
> > Please allow external users some dece
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:25:30 +0100
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yesterday, after spending quite a few hours over the last days on
> bisecting some serious regressions and finding workarounds for them,
> I thought I could start using 2.6.25-rc2 as the new kernel for my
> desktop. Unfortun
Adrian wrote:
> So let's fix the problem (kernel lacks functionality)
That's the problem as understood by Adrian.
I hear another problem as well ...
Frans wrote:
> Please allow external users some decent period for transitioning. The
> initial plan to "remove the old function in 2.6.27" was en
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:24:56PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 17.02.2008 14:16 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
>> The real problem is that the kernel seems to lack functionality you
>> require for doing some work.
>>
>> Why does your work on the Debian Installer depend on VirtualBox and
>> can't be d
Am 17.02.2008 14:16 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
The real problem is that the kernel seems to lack functionality you
require for doing some work.
Why does your work on the Debian Installer depend on VirtualBox and
can't be done with what the kernel already ships?
No, that's not the real problem. Even
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:25:30AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>...
> For my work on the Debian Installer I heavily rely on emulators to run test
> installs and ATM my emulator of choice is VirtualBox (the fully open "ose"
> version). This requires the vboxdrv kernel module, but unfortunately:
>...
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
