[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46B05209.4050103@bull.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:27:37 +0200
From: Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@...l.net>
To: Jim Hull <jim.hull@...com>
Cc: 'KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki' <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
'David Mosberger-Tang' <dmosberger@...il.com>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
'Christoph Lameter' <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization
for cpus other than montecito
Jim Hull wrote:
> Not just crazy, but wrong - this *can* happen on pre-Montecito. Even though
> L1D is write-through and L2 was mixed I/D, the L1 I-cache could contain
> stale instrutions if there are missing flushes.
I cannot agree with you.
In order to consider an L1 I-cache entry as valid, a corresponding
virtual -> physic address translation should be valid in one of the L1 ITLBs.
"See 6.1.1. Instruction TLBS" of the I2 Proc. Ref. Man. for SW Dev. & Opt.
You cannot have a valid L1 ITLB entry unless you have a corresponding valid
L2 ITLB entry.
When you remove a PTE (or switch off the exec bit) and you flush the L2 ITLB
matching the old translation (and you kill the corresponding L1 ITLBs),
you do invalidate the corresponding L1 I-cache entries.
Therefore CPU models without split L2 caches are safe.
Thanks,
Zoltan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists