Le 14/05/2015 02:49, Scott Wood a écrit :
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 15:32 +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
This partially reverts
commit 'powerpc: Remove duplicate cacheable_memcpy/memzero functions
("f909a35bdfb7cb350d078a2cf888162eeb20381c")'
I don't have that SHA.  Do you mean
b05ae4ee602b7dc90771408ccf0972e1b3801a35?
Right, took it from the wrong tree sorry.

Functions cacheable_memcpy/memzero are more efficient than
memcpy/memset as they use the dcbz instruction which avoids refill
of the cacheline with the data that we will overwrite.
I don't see anything in this patchset that addresses the "NOTE: The old
routines are just flat buggy on kernels that support hardware with
different cacheline sizes" comment.
I believe the NOTE means that if a kernel is compiled for several CPUs having different cache line size, then it will not work. But it is also the case of other functions using dcbz instruction, like copy_page() clear_page() copy_tofrom_user().

And indeed, this seems only possible in three cases:
1/ With CONFIG_44x as 47x has different size than 44x and 46x. However it is explicitly stated in arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/Kconfig : "config PPC_47x This option enables support for the 47x family of processors and is not currently compatible with other 44x or 46x varients" 2/ With CONFIG_PPC_85xx, as PPC_E500MC has different size than other E500. However it is explicitly stated in arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype : "config PPC_E500MC This must be enabled for running on e500mc (and derivatives such as e5500/e6500), and must be disabled for running on e500v1 or e500v2." 3/ With CONFIG_403GCX as 403GCX has different size than other 40x. However it seems to be no way to select CONFIG_403GCX from arch/powerpc/platforms/40x/Kconfig

Christophe

---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel 
antivirus Avast.
http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Reply via email to