Linux MIPS Architecture development
 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox