From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 14 16:14:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16950 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:14:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from phoenix.volant.org (phoenix.volant.org [205.179.79.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA16924 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:14:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from patl@phoenix.volant.org) From: patl@phoenix.volant.org Received: from asimov.phoenix.volant.org [205.179.79.65] by phoenix.volant.org with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0y3nK3-00057p-00; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:32:23 -0800 Received: from localhost by asimov.phoenix.volant.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23043; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:30:34 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:30:34 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: patl@phoenix.volant.org Subject: x86 memory performance 'flaw' ? To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I just came across a site that claims that there is a design 'flaw' that affects memory/cache performance for all recent x86 processors; and provides a work-around. I'm interested in the opinions of the wizards on this list. The URL is: http://www.intelligentfirm.com/ Thanks, -Pat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message