From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19D0B7B78 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:21:28 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: I think I have 8xx working... From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Joakim Tjernlund In-Reply-To: References: <20091015004127.GA15570@laura.chatsunix.int.mrv.com> <1255568772.2347.60.camel@pasglop> <20091015010855.GA32710@compile2.chatsunix.int.mrv.com> <1255569170.2347.62.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:21:15 +1100 Message-Id: <1255587675.2347.92.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Scott Wood , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , Rex Feany List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 07:42 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > I didn't say that, did I? More like: > if I don't do tlbil_va at all I get a lot of extra/duplicate TLB > errors > for the same address. Adding the patch makes these go away. > I guess one could do tlbil_va unconditionally but I didn't > see any improvements from doing that, but this was all on 2.4 Ok so I misparsed you. I was advocating going unconditional here and though you said it would increase the miss rate. Cheers, Ben