On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a bit worried about the performance impact of all this flushing? What
> is the worst case scenario here?
>
IMHO
When a user set VM_EXEC to their anonymous memory intentionally and
does many page faul
I am a bit worried about the performance impact of all this flushing? What
is the worst case scenario here?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Pl
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 07:18:53 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:13:09 -0600
> Mike Stroyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The L3 cache is involved in the HP-UX defect description because the
> > earlier HP-UX patch PHKL_33781 added flushing of the instructi
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:13:09 -0600
Mike Stroyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You don't seem to have removed the lazy_mmu_prot_update() calls from
> mm/hugetlb.c. Will that build with HUGETLBFS configured?
>
Thanks, it's my patch refresh miss... Sigh..
-Kame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:13:09 -0600
Mike Stroyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The L3 cache is involved in the HP-UX defect description because the
> earlier HP-UX patch PHKL_33781 added flushing of the instruction cache
> when an executable mapping was removed. Linux never added that
> unsuccessfu
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 03:05:04PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> This is a experimental patch for fixing icache flush race of ia64(Montecito).
>
> Problem Description:
> Montecito, new ia64 processor, has separated L2 i-cache and d-cache,
> and i-cache and d-cache is not consistent in automati
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:19:41 +1000
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From what I can work out, it is something like "at this point the page
should be uptodate, so at least the icache won't contain *inconsistent*
data, just old data which userspace should take care
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:19:41 +1000
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> From what I can work out, it is something like "at this point the page
> >>should be uptodate, so at least the icache won't contain *inconsistent*
> >>data, just old data which userspace should take care of flushing if
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:04:23 +1000
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In my understanding :
PG_arch_1 is used for showing "there is no inconsistent data on any level of
cache". PG_uptodate is used for showing "this page includes the newest data
and contents are vali
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:04:23 +1000
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my understanding :
> > PG_arch_1 is used for showing "there is no inconsistent data on any level of
> > cache". PG_uptodate is used for showing "this page includes the newest data
> > and contents are valid."
> > ...ma
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:31:06 +1000
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only thing I noticed when I looked at the code is that some places
may not have flushed icache when they should have? Did you get them all?
I think that I added flush_icache_page() to the p
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:31:06 +1000
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only thing I noticed when I looked at the code is that some places
> may not have flushed icache when they should have? Did you get them all?
I think that I added flush_icache_page() to the place where any
flush_(i)ca
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
This is a experimental patch for fixing icache flush race of ia64(Montecito).
Problem Description:
Montecito, new ia64 processor, has separated L2 i-cache and d-cache,
and i-cache and d-cache is not consistent in automatic way.
L1 cache is also separated but L1 D-cache
13 matches
Mail list logo
