[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8736k49c57.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:31:48 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Kleen\, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] resource: Introduce resource cache
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
>
> The underlying issue is that the x86-PAT implementation wants to
> ensure that conflicting mappings are not set up for the same physical
> address. This is mentioned in the developer manuals as problematic on
> some cpus. Andi, is lookup_memtype() and track_pfn_insert() still
> relevant?
There have been discussions about it in the past, and the right answer
will likely differ for different CPUs: But so far the official answer
for Intel CPUs is that these caching conflicts should be avoided.
So I guess the cache in the original email makes sense for now.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists