From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Fri,  5 Dec 2008 14:25:10 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <57cb40901c57600ac592ec15ccb1a687@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <49397F3E.9070801@telus.net>
References: <13426df10812042239pde2100dw696049def0160c4a@mail.gmail.com>
	<39cb2be32e592403f7336c6200cf56a3@quanstro.net>
	<dd6fe68a0812051027t5661d7ebs81cce9a4ca0a6b7f@mail.gmail.com>
	<dd6fe68a0812051032i7fad822bx34fdb9cc704f280e@mail.gmail.com>
	<13426df10812051049j40b40b78u4ae74a3fc7df07a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<49397F3E.9070801@telus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] image/memimage speed
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5b3271a6-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri Dec  5 14:23:22 EST 2008, plalonde@telus.net wrote:
> Again, you can stream a whole frame buffer reasonably fast - that should
> be nearly full-rate; it should be full rate if you pre-fetch with
> sufficient advance notice (500-1000 clocks), or DMA.  But random access
> reads *have* to be slow: you get a stall while the system goes to PCIe
> for each cache line you attempt to read from.
>
> Paul

the cpu is allowed to speculatively cache WC memory.

- erik