From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751090AbVHOMQL (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:16:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751091AbVHOMQL (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:16:11 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:41781 "HELO science.horizon.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751090AbVHOMQK (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:16:10 -0400 Date: 15 Aug 2005 08:15:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20050815121555.29159.qmail@science.horizon.com> From: linux@horizon.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll() Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Actually, is there any place *other* than write() to the page cache that warrants a non-temporal store? Network sockets with scatter/gather and hardware checksum, maybe? This is pretty much synonomous with what is allowed to go into high memory, no? While we're on the subject, for the copy_from_user source, prefetchnta is probably indicated. If user space hasn't caused it to be cached already (admittedly, the common case), we *know* the kernel isn't going to look at that data again.