From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Menyhart, Zoltan" Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:55:42 +0000 Subject: Re: flush_icache_range Message-Id: <429F8E6E.1090805@free.fr> List-Id: References: <4236D7B5.8050408@bull.net> In-Reply-To: <4236D7B5.8050408@bull.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org David Mosberger wrote: > Zoltan> unique_caches - cache_levels = 2 > > Zoltan> I could not find anything making sure that we've got in this > Zoltan> case L1I and L2I, and not L1I and L3I (feeding through the > Zoltan> unified L2). Yes, I know there is no such a CPU (at the > Zoltan> moment) but the PAL spec. does not exclude it :-) > >I don't think it matters whether you pick up the stride from an >i-cache or a unified cache. As long as you take the minimum stride, >it will work correctly. > > I mean: - if the cache of a given level is split, then we need to take the stride size of the i-cache: pal_cache_config_info(level, /* cache_type = */ 1,...) - if the cache of a given level is unified, then we need to take the stride size of the unified/data cache: pal_cache_config_info(level, /* cache_type = */ 2,...) In my example I know only that some (but not all) the levels are split. Guessing the existence of a split cache by not obtaining an "Invalid argument" error form "pal_cache_config_info()" is a bit weak method... Thanks, Zoltan