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
next prev 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