lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates
From
Date
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 13:27 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Will Simoneau <simoneau@ele.uri.edu>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:11:23 -0500
>
> > Note how the cache and cache coherence protocol are fundamental parts of this
> > operation; if these instructions simply bypassed the cache, they *could not*
> > work correctly - how do you detect when the underlying memory has been
> > modified?
>
> The issue here isn't L2 cache bypassing, it's local L1 cache bypassing.
>
> The chips in question aparently do not consult the local L1 cache on
> "ll" instructions.
>
> Therefore you must only ever access such atomic data using "ll"
> instructions.

Note that it's actually a reasonable design choice to not consult the L1
in these case .... as long as you invalidate it on the way. That's how
current powerpcs do it afaik, they send a kill to any matching L1 line
along as reading from the L2. (Of course, L1 has to be write-through for
that to work).

Cheers,
Ben.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-15 23:25    [W:0.273 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site