From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Mapping ACPI tables as CACHED Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:17:04 -0800 Message-ID: <4D084140.1070700@zytor.com> References: <20101214220932.GA1206@sgi.com> <4D07F6A2.2030706@zytor.com> <20101215022735.GA19601@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:45695 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759274Ab0LOERm (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:17:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101215022735.GA19601@sgi.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jack Steiner Cc: lenb@kernel.org, hmh@hmh.eng.br, tony.luck@gmail.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gbeshers@sgi.com On 12/14/2010 06:27 PM, Jack Steiner wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:58:42PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 12/14/2010 02:09 PM, Jack Steiner wrote: >>> Map ACPI tables as WB on x86_64. No substantive changes to IA64. >> >> Why just x86-64? > > We never observed a performance problem on IA64. Not sure if it maps > ACPI space as WB or not. Since I did not have easy access to > an ia64, I chose not to make any changes to the way it maps > the table. > You're missing the point: x86-64 as opposed to x86 in general. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.