WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

Re: [PATCH] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Std VGA Performance

To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Std VGA Performance
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:02:38 +0000
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Phillips <rphillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Guthro <bguthro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:03:33 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1193762458.31834.24.camel@bling>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcgbFqyo6175oocJEdy3OgAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [PATCH] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Std VGA Performance
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
On 30/10/07 16:40, "Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 16:24 +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Yeah, hopefully that's a bug in the comment. I would expect 4-byte accesses
>> to be possible and be handled. As for 8-byte accesses, they can certainly
>> happen, why not? Unlikely at start of day, but once we're in x86/64 mode
>> there's no reason why not.
> 
>    Right, and it seems that the "quadword" handling is quite specific to
> timeoffset.  It takes advantage of the fact that that there's no address
> and stuff some of the data in there.  So, I think both 4 & 8 byte
> buffered mmio is likely broken right now on x86.  Thanks,

I guess we'll see how testing goes over the next little while. If the
bufioreq changes prove to be broken we can back them out before 3.2.0, or
better yet fix them ;-).

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel