From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nan.false.org (NaN.false.org [208.75.86.248]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFAFDDF14 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:03:54 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:41:30 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: Apparent kernel bug with GDB on ppc405 Message-ID: <20071024224130.GA30819@caradoc.them.org> References: <20071024194640.GB19691@waste.org> <20071024204215.GC19691@waste.org> <20071024215421.GF19691@waste.org> <20071024223250.GI19691@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20071024223250.GI19691@waste.org> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > Not completely implausible, but a) why isn't this seen on basically > every machine with software TLB? b) why does -local- GDB, which is > presumably doing much less work than gdbserver + network stack, not fail? You said it yourself. Local gdb does more work -> blows through more TLB entries. I can't answer you about the other half, but I'm pretty sure TLB invalidation is already supposed to be happening... somewhere. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery