From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Virtual alias cache coherency results (was: x86, ARM, PARISC, PPC, MIPS and Sparc folks please run this)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:09:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030911160929.A19449@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030911123535.GB28180@mail.jlokier.co.uk>; from jamie@shareable.org on Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 01:35:35PM +0100
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 01:35:35PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> > > Does your fix, which makes pages uncacheable andq disables write
> > > combining (correct?) only fix your test results which intermittently
> > > reported write buffer problems, or does it fix _all_ the ARM test
> > > results I received, including those which don't report write buffer
> > > problems?
> >
> > It's relatively simple, and I'm not sure why its causing such
> > misunderstanding. Let me try one more time:
> >
> > ARM caches are VIVT. VIVT caches have inherent aliasing issues. The
> > kernel works around these issues by marking memory uncacheable where
> > appropriate, and will continue to do so for VIVT cached ARM CPUs.
>
> That I understand fully.
I don't think you do.
> My question arises because I have 3 SA-110 results which report "cache
> not coherent". They do not report "store buffer not coherent". All 3
> are Rebel Netwinders, of different bogomips ratings.
>
> The point is: those results _don't_ indicate write buffer problems.
Maybe those StrongARM chips don't exhibit the write buffer bug? Remember,
I said _SOME_ StrongARM-110 chips exhibit the problem. I did not say
_ALL_ StrongARM-110 chips exhibit the problem.
> It means that your VIVT explanation and workaround does not explain
> those results, so I cannot have confidence that your workaround fixes
> those particular ARM devices.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, I completely believe that I have explained
it entirely, and I still don't know why you're trying to make this more
difficult than it factually is.
> Now, if you can assure me that those results are _definitely_ due to
> using very old kernels which don't even mark pages uncacheable, and
> with newer kernels those Netwinders would exhibit coherent virtual
> aliases, that's great.
Well, once you collect the kernel information and forward it to me, I
can have a look.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/
Linux kernel maintainer of:
2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-11 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-10 21:04 Virtual alias cache coherency results (was: x86, ARM, PARISC, PPC, MIPS and Sparc folks please run this) Jamie Lokier
2003-09-10 22:39 ` Russell King
2003-09-10 23:37 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-09-11 0:07 ` Russell King
2003-09-11 12:35 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-09-11 15:09 ` Russell King [this message]
2003-09-11 16:25 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-09-11 16:52 ` Russell King
2003-09-11 18:55 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-09-12 0:45 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-09-12 7:48 ` Russell King
2003-09-11 18:51 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2003-09-11 10:17 ` Richard Curnow
2003-09-11 16:34 ` Jamie Lokier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030911160929.A19449@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox