On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:41:34PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> slbia must invalidate TLBs even if it does not remove a valid SLB
> entry, because slbmte can overwrite valid entries without removing
> their TLBs.
>
> As the architecture says, slbia invalidates all lookaside information,
> not c
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:52:32PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
65;5803;1c> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:41:34 +1000
> Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
> > slbia must invalidate TLBs even if it does not remove a valid SLB
> > entry, because slbmte can overwrite valid entries without removing
> > their TLBs.
> >
>
Cédric Le Goater's on March 19, 2020 2:45 am:
> On 3/18/20 5:41 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> slbia must invalidate TLBs even if it does not remove a valid SLB
>> entry, because slbmte can overwrite valid entries without removing
>> their TLBs.
>>
>> As the architecture says, slbia invalidates all
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:41:34 +1000
Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> slbia must invalidate TLBs even if it does not remove a valid SLB
> entry, because slbmte can overwrite valid entries without removing
> their TLBs.
>
> As the architecture says, slbia invalidates all lookaside information,
> not condit
On 3/18/20 5:41 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> slbia must invalidate TLBs even if it does not remove a valid SLB
> entry, because slbmte can overwrite valid entries without removing
> their TLBs.
>
> As the architecture says, slbia invalidates all lookaside information,
> not conditionally based on
slbia must invalidate TLBs even if it does not remove a valid SLB
entry, because slbmte can overwrite valid entries without removing
their TLBs.
As the architecture says, slbia invalidates all lookaside information,
not conditionally based on if it removed valid entries.
It does not seem possible
