Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jesse Barnes
Date: Friday, May 2, 2008 - 1:40 pm

On Friday, May 02, 2008 12:37 pm Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:

These messages?  They're coming from the kernel it looks like, from the 
map_devmem routine in pat.c.  I'm not sure they're accurate though; for PCI 
regions /dev/mem is *supposed* to map with UC- and not WB, so maybe this 
function needs to be updated?


This is just a transient issue during VT switch or server exit though, right?  
X functionality isn't affected, and your VTs work fine?  If so, it might not 
be a PAT issue but just a different memory layout or something (and therefore 
it would really just be a cosmetic bug in the X driver).

I really think PAT should be on by default; if you're running into real 
functional or performance problems we'd better get them fixed rather than 
disabling PAT...

Thanks,
Jesse

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Fri May 2, 12:22 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 12:37 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 1:40 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 2:55 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 3:07 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Ingo Molnar, (Sun May 4, 2:04 am)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 8:57 am)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 10:00 am)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Yinghai Lu, (Mon May 5, 10:42 am)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 10:45 am)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 10:59 am)
Re: fb layer & ioremap_wc, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 12:04 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Venki Pallipadi, (Tue May 6, 3:42 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Wed May 7, 12:02 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Wed May 7, 12:18 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 3:36 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 4:23 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Fri May 9, 3:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 1:05 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 1:09 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Fri May 9, 1:48 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Fri May 9, 3:11 pm)
RE: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 9, 3:20 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Keith Packard, (Fri May 9, 10:45 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Fri May 9, 11:19 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Keith Packard, (Fri May 9, 11:29 pm)
Re: fb layer & ioremap_wc, Frans Pop, (Fri Jun 13, 9:42 am)