Re: update_mmu_cache(): fault or not fault ?

Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-09-26T21:28:55Z

On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 12:52 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:

> So this is a ton of complication, which is straightforwardly done in
> the TLB miss handler. And if you think about it, since we've been
> writing the PTE entries and walking the page tables for fault
> processing, all of this will be hot in the L2 cache when we take
> the nearly immediate TLB miss.
>
> Anyways, I'm very likely going to remove the prefilling of TLB entries
> on sparc64. I hope it's more beneficial and less complicated for ppc64
> :-)

Ok, makes sense. On most ppc, things aren't pretty much equivalent on
real faults and pre-fill (except for masking interrupts which we have to
add to the pre-fill case). Anyway, best is to get real numbers with some
benchmarks, I'll see if I can get something from the 4xx folks.

Ben.