[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:10:09 +0530
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
catalin.marinas@....com, mdharm-kernel@...-eyed-alien.net,
oliver@...kum.org, linux@....linux.org.uk, greg@...ah.com,
x0082077@...com, sshtylyov@...mvista.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
santosh.shilimkar@...com, pavel@....cz, tom.leiming@...il.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: USB mass storage and ARM cache coherency
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:10 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 12:47 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > The ways to improve the approach (introducing PG_arch_2 or marking a
> > page clean on dma_unmap_* with DMA_FROM_DEVICE like ia64 does) is up
> > to architectures.
>
> How does the above work ? IE, the dma unmap will flush the D side but
> not the I side ... or is the ia64 flush primitive magic enough to do
> both ?
The point is that in a well regulated system, the I cache shouldn't need
extra flushing in the kernel. We should only be faulting in R-X pages.
If we're operating on RWX pages (i.e. self modifying code), it's the job
of userspace to keep I/D coherency.
So the only case the kernel needs to worry about is the R-X fault case
for executable text code.
James
--
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