From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 5 2:26:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F43614DF8 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 02:26:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA52069; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:26:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Chris Cc: John-Mark Gurney , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Results of investigating optimizing calloc()... References: <001e01bedde3$d1af64c0$291c453f@kbyanc.alcnet.com> <19990804202932.50575@hydrogen.fircrest.net> <37A953EC.AB5E9F90@tig.com.au> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 05 Aug 1999 11:26:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: Chris's message of "Thu, 05 Aug 1999 19:05:48 +1000" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chris writes: > Anyways thats all I can think of. The only way I can see that using DMA > to refresh pages as a faster method is if the DMA controller can do it > quicker than the CPU which I doubt is likely, also it will only be > useful if it can do 32-bit addresses. Grr.. *read what I f###ing wrote* The issue is not speed, because this is something we do in the background when there's nothing else to do. The issue is to avoid thrashing the cache. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message