> 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 don't even implement > it in the kernel. Yes it's really that bad. I know of one case at least where WC is very useful. Some InfiniBand adapters allow small messages to be written directly into the adapter's PCI space BAR to lower latency (having the CPU write the message avoids doing something like build descriptor, ring doorbell register on adapter, adapter DMA message out of CPU memory). And mapping the PCI space with WC is a pretty big win -- for example for mlx4 hardware it gets MPI latency from ~1.8 usec to ~1.3 usec which is a big deal. I think most real users of mlx4 hardware are using a hacky out-of-tree patch to allow using PAT to set WC. AFAIK mapping PCI memory WB is not allowed, so WC is really our only choice. - R. --
| Eric Sandeen | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 007/196] Chinese: add translation of stable_kernel_rules.txt |
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
