linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Once again: test_and_set for CPUs w/o LL/SC

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Subject: Re: Once again: test_and_set for CPUs w/o LL/SC
From: Johannes Stezenbach <js@convergence.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:50:39 +0200
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1021015171049.16503A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Mail-followup-to: Johannes Stezenbach <js@convergence.de>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>, "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <01fd01c26e1d$add77240$10eca8c0@grendel> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1021015171049.16503A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:17:24PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> 
> > That's probably going to be a more reliable design,
> > though I would still consider leaving the TLB refill handler
> > untouched and counting on the fact that k1 must contain
> > a non-lethal EntryLo value on return from the exception.
> 
>  Well, there is a "nop" just before the "eret" in all R4k-style TLB
> exception handlers.  I see no problem to use the slot for explicit
> clobbering of k0 or k1 with a single instruction like "li" or "lui". 

Now that you say it it's pretty obvious...

Thanks,
Johannes

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>