From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:43:44 +1000 From: David Gibson To: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Cc: Dan Malek , Tom Rini , Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: Do we need tlbsx at finish_tlb_load? Message-ID: <20020603024344.GA6765@zax> References: <20020530080434.GY16537@zax> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020530080434.GY16537@zax> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 06:04:34PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > A question to Dan and Tom in particular: > > At the moment on 4xx, just after finish_tlb_load, which is called by > both the TLB miss handlers, we do a tlbsx to see if an entry for this > virtual address already exists. > > Since this code is only called from the TLB miss handler, I can't see > how there could ever be a valid TLB entry present at this point. > There is a comment claiming that this path can be hit under some > circumstances, but it doesn't make sense to me. > > Is there any situation where we can reach this point with a valid TLB > entry existing for the faulting address? Ok, not seeing any replies here. If no-one speaks up for this tlbsx in the next couple of days, I'll remove it from 2_4_devel. -- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. -- H.L. Mencken http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/