From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: [git patches] xfs and block fixes for virtually indexed arches Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:33:05 +0000 Message-ID: <20091219183305.GA10568@linux-mips.org> References: <20091216043618.GB9104@hera.kernel.org> <20091217132256.GO28962@bombadil.infradead.org> <20091217163036.GE2123@thunk.org> <20091217170743.GA10431@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , tytso@mit.edu, Kyle McMartin , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , James.Bottomley@suse.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 09:42:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I also think that the changes to bio_map_kernel() and bio_map_kern_endio() > are not just "fundamentally ugly", I think they are made worse by the fact > that it's not even done "right". You both flush the virtual caches before > the IO and invalidate after - when the real pattern should be that you > flush it before a write, and invalidate it after a read. > > And I really think that would be all much more properly done at the > _caller_ level, not by the BIO layer. > > You must have some locking and allocation etc logic at the caller anyway, > why doesn't _that_ level just do the flushing or invalidation? And then there are certain types of caches that need invalidation before _and_ after a DMA transaction as a workaround for a processor being grossly abused in a system that it should not be used in. Basically the issue is that falsly speculated stores may dirty caches. Ralf