On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 01:01 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Ok, that's my understanding too and I think we had the tlbie in > > update_mmu_cache to do the trick, though the comment is misleading > > making it think that the only reason it's there is for the dcbst > > problem. At least that's my understanding. That was lost recently in > 2.6 > > so I'll have to put it back properly. > > So you don't think my invalidate "only !present pages" patch in > do_page_fault is enough?
It might well be the right solution, I was talking about the code as we have upstream today. > I don't think we do the pre-load to avoid the second fault, but we > It won't get much faster than my current patch. Trapping all DTLB > Errors to C won't make it faster, only more correct should there be > a bug in the asm version. Actually there is one that has been there > all the time, guarded flag is not set by DTLB Error. There's other areas of improvements I suggested that can make it faster such as avoiding the whole kernel/user test in the TLB misses. Removing the stuff in DataTLBError can potentially make normal page faults faster too by avoiding going through a bunch of useless code before going to do the real thing in C :-) As I said, the case of ACCESSED or DIRTY updates are rare enough to not warrant code in the main page fault hot path. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
