All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Cc: "Florian Lohoff" <flo@rfc822.org>, <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: MIPS32 patches breaking DecStation
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:09:58 -0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010109130958.B1047@bacchus.dhis.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000501c079d3$fefe1a60$0deca8c0@Ulysses>; from kevink@mips.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:34:47AM +0100

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:34:47AM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:

> uses 3 or 4 nops instead of the branch to the instruction
> after the delay slot?   There was a reason that I eliminated
> the branch construct from the MIPS internal Linux source
> base - it's a hack that works perfectly on R4000's, but
> it's pretty much a coincidence that it does so.  Yes,
> the code fragment in question is R4K-specific, but
> we really need to migrate towards the use of consistent
> mechanisms that work across the full range of MIPS
> CPUs.  Ideally, *all* CP0 hazards should some day be 
> padded out with "ssnops" (sll $0,$0,1, if I recall), which 
> force a 1 cycle delay per instruction even on superscalar 
> MIPS CPUs.

While we could come up with a common TLB fault handler I really don't want
to.  For many applications this TLB fault handler is extremly performance
sensitive; every single cycle directly translates into application
performance.  Seems like we'll need some more TLB fault handler.  And a
complete TLB fault handler rewrite would be a good ide anyway, sigh ...

  Ralf

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Cc: Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: MIPS32 patches breaking DecStation
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:09:58 -0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010109130958.B1047@bacchus.dhis.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20010109150958.OLPIkDtv1QR19YuUEoU9UTNdiimRGC7qqr3TATgzz1I@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000501c079d3$fefe1a60$0deca8c0@Ulysses>; from kevink@mips.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:34:47AM +0100

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:34:47AM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:

> uses 3 or 4 nops instead of the branch to the instruction
> after the delay slot?   There was a reason that I eliminated
> the branch construct from the MIPS internal Linux source
> base - it's a hack that works perfectly on R4000's, but
> it's pretty much a coincidence that it does so.  Yes,
> the code fragment in question is R4K-specific, but
> we really need to migrate towards the use of consistent
> mechanisms that work across the full range of MIPS
> CPUs.  Ideally, *all* CP0 hazards should some day be 
> padded out with "ssnops" (sll $0,$0,1, if I recall), which 
> force a 1 cycle delay per instruction even on superscalar 
> MIPS CPUs.

While we could come up with a common TLB fault handler I really don't want
to.  For many applications this TLB fault handler is extremly performance
sensitive; every single cycle directly translates into application
performance.  Seems like we'll need some more TLB fault handler.  And a
complete TLB fault handler rewrite would be a good ide anyway, sigh ...

  Ralf

  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-01-09 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-01-08 23:41 MIPS32 patches breaking DecStation Florian Lohoff
2001-01-08 23:41 ` Florian Lohoff
2001-01-09  0:34 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09  0:34   ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09  8:54   ` Florian Lohoff
2001-01-09 17:11     ` Harald Koerfgen
2001-01-09 18:28       ` Ralf Baechle
2001-01-09 19:30         ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09 19:30           ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09 19:54           ` Ralf Baechle
2001-01-09 19:54             ` Ralf Baechle
2001-01-09 20:33             ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09 20:33               ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09 15:09   ` Ralf Baechle [this message]
2001-01-09 15:09     ` Ralf Baechle
2001-01-09 15:50     ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09 15:50       ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-01-09 16:43 ` Harald Koerfgen
2001-01-09 17:01   ` Ralf Baechle

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20010109130958.B1047@bacchus.dhis.org \
    --to=ralf@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=flo@rfc822.org \
    --cc=kevink@mips.com \
    --cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.