From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Michael Neuling To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] fixes for the SLB shadow buffer In-reply-to: <1186046080.5495.620.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <17055.1185944172@neuling.org> <18096.6654.934841.561238@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <31580.1185948147@neuling.org> <1186004885.22717.50.camel@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> <24613.1186034191@neuling.org> <1186039870.5495.595.camel@localhost.localdomain> <13166.1186045008@neuling.org> <1186045096.5495.617.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17854.1186045405@neuling.org> <1186046080.5495.620.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:28:15 +1000 Message-ID: <30559.1186046895@neuling.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 19:03 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > > > > > > Ok, that was missing from your description :-) > > > > Sorry... so ditch the barriers? > > As you like. The reason why you can ditch them is purely because you > know for sure that the only case the firmware will access those shadows > from another CPU is that one and it happens to be just right. What are > the chances that in the future, FW will do something different and > nobody will "fix" the code ? Yep, I might chat to some PHYP guys and see what they think. > Considering that eieios are fairly cheap and it's not a very hot code > path as far as I can tell, I'd rather keep them. OK. I'll keep them in for now and submit an optimisation patch later if need be. Mikey