From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10801161528j4f78ddbas890cbeb449ba9226@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:28:08 -0800 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] man is really slow on a terminal In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10801161508n3dc7e3f2wa8f3f246002dd1ca@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 304b3992-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Jan 16, 2008 3:14 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > is there a problem with the generality of this patch? Note that the patch is saved, and I'm guessing there is a reason: it's arguably gross to expose the MTRRs to the world. I was thinking about this. It seems to me that MTRRs could really be managed in mmu.c (but it's a headache). You would need to know when a device mapped physical memory that it ought to be cached, and set the MTRRs up properly. > > it would also be nice if the kernel kept it's own copy > of the frame buffer. nvidia^wmodern graphics cards are just not > designed to be read from. I know that is true on AGP, but had understood it to be less true on PCIe. Is it really so bad on PCIe now? thanks ron