On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:02:09PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 22/02/16 10:09, Paul Burton wrote:
> > Index-based cache operations may be arbitrarily reordered by out of
> > order CPUs. Thus code which writes back the dcache & then invalidates
> > the icache using indexed cache ops must inc
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:39:30PM -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 13:09, Paul Burton wrote:
> > Index-based cache operations may be arbitrarily reordered by out of
> > order CPUs. Thus code which writes back the dcache & then invalidates
> > the icache using indexed cache ops must incl
On 22/02/16 10:09, Paul Burton wrote:
> Index-based cache operations may be arbitrarily reordered by out of
> order CPUs. Thus code which writes back the dcache & then invalidates
> the icache using indexed cache ops must include a barrier between
> operating on the 2 caches in order to prevent the
On 02/22/2016 13:09, Paul Burton wrote:
> Index-based cache operations may be arbitrarily reordered by out of
> order CPUs. Thus code which writes back the dcache & then invalidates
> the icache using indexed cache ops must include a barrier between
> operating on the 2 caches in order to prevent t
Index-based cache operations may be arbitrarily reordered by out of
order CPUs. Thus code which writes back the dcache & then invalidates
the icache using indexed cache ops must include a barrier between
operating on the 2 caches in order to prevent the scenario in which:
- icache invalidation o
5 matches
Mail list logo
