Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito

Luck, Tony wrote:

This seems crazy to me.  Flushing should occur according to the
*architecture*, not model-by-model.  Even if we happen to get "lucky"
on pre-Montecito CPUs, that doesn't justify such ugly hacks.  Or you
really want to debug this *again* come next CPU?

Ditto.  The only reason we should ever have model specific checks should
be to work around model specific errata (e.g. the McKinley Errata #9 code
in patch.c).

You do have model specific I cache semantics.
Not taking it into account will oblige you to flush in vain for the models
which do not require it. Why do you want to take this option?


Thanks,

Zoltan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
    • From: "David Mosberger-Tang" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
    • From: "Luck, Tony" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Reboot hang FIXED
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Typo fixes interrrupt -> interrupt
• Previous by thread: RE: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]