[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101018225056.GI27377@linux-mips.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:50:56 +0100
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>
Cc: Shinya Kuribayashi <skuribay@...ox.com>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend 5/9] MIPS: sync after cacheflush
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:41:20PM -0700, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org> wrote:
> > I'm trying to get a statement from the MIPS architecture guys if the
> > necessity to do anything beyond a cache flush is an architecture violation.
>
> IMO such a requirement would be unnecessarily strict. Larger flushes
> (e.g. page at a time) tend to benefit from some form of pipelining or
> write gathering. Forcing the processor to flush exactly 32 bytes at a
> time, synchronously, could really slow things down and thrash the
> memory controller.
>
> I have not been able to find any official statement from MIPS that
> says that CACHE + SYNC should be used, but that seems like the most
> intuitive way to implement things on the hardware side.
I agree with you but I seem to remember having read something that suggests
otherwise. Oh well, maybe it's just something in the Cambridge water
that makes my halocinate ;)
Ralf
--
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