On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 14:40 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 16:12:16 -0500
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > When writing to the process table, we need to ensure the store is
> > visible to a subsequent access by the MMU. We assume we never have
> > the PID active while do
On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 16:12:16 -0500
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> When writing to the process table, we need to ensure the store is
> visible to a subsequent access by the MMU. We assume we never have
> the PID active while doing the update, so a ptesync/isync pair
> should hopefully be a big en
When writing to the process table, we need to ensure the store is
visible to a subsequent access by the MMU. We assume we never have
the PID active while doing the update, so a ptesync/isync pair
should hopefully be a big enough hammer for our purpose.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
---
N
