From: Masahiro A. <m-...@aa...> - 2001-07-13 06:02:53
|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:48:47 +0900 SUGIOKA Toshinobu <su...@it...> wrote: > At 14:03 01/07/13 +0900, Masahiro Abe <m-...@aa...> wrote: > > >I would like to ask you about this patch. Is this real fix, or (kind of) > >hiding the problem caused by another source? Sorry if this sounds silly, > >I still don't understand the fundamentals of MMU and cache. > > 'copy_user_page/clear_user_page' creates temporal TLB entry to avoid cache alias issue on some situation. > and uses temporal virtual address (in P3) instead of requested address (in U0). > > This entry should be flashed before adding next temporal TLB entry on this virtual address, > otherwise multiple TLB hit will occur. Thank you for your detailed explanation. It will help me a lot to understand the situation. > that patch flashes before adding new temporal TLB entry, but it might better to flash immediately after > copy/clear memory. So this means that instead of calling __flush_tlb_page BEFORE update_mmu_cache, we should call it AFTER copy_page? I'm gonna try that. ================================= Masahiro ABE, A&D Co., Ltd. Japan |