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)cache_xxx is not called and lazy_mmu_prot_update was used instead of them. But I want good review, of course. > Minor nitpick: you have one place where you test VM_EXEC before flushing, > but the flush routine itself contains the same test I think? > Ah, yes...in do_anonymous_page(). my mistake. > Regarding the ia64 code -- I'm not an expert so I can't say whether it > is the right thing to do or not. However I still can't work out what it's > rationale for the PG_arch_1 bit is, exactly. Does it assume that > flush_dcache_page sites would only ever be encountered by pages that are > not faulted in? A faulted in page kind of is "special" because it is > guaranteed uptodate, but is the ia64 arch code relying on that? Should it? (I'm sorry if I misses point.) ia64's D-cache is coherent but I-cache and D-cache is not coherent and any invalidation against d-cache will invalidate I-cache. 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." ...maybe not used for the same purpose. BTW, a page filled by DMA should have PG_arch_1 :( -Kame - 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 Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
