| To: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Problem with TLB mcheck! |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Wed, 24 May 2006 16:52:07 +0100 |
| Cc: | art <art@sigrand.ru>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0605241605120.7887@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <19691.060524@sigrand.ru> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0605241304090.7887@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20060524144917.GA11657@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0605241605120.7887@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:11:12PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Depends on when exactly a CPU will raise the machine check. On some cores > > the information in registers is totally useless if not even missloading. > > We have got PRId to filter out these. Though rev. 2 of the architecture > limits conditions when to raise the exception so it may eventually be a > non-issue. Doesn't really help, the exception is asynchronous by definition, so the CPU can be far away by the time it's struck be the lightning bolt. Machine check is just a _bad_ place to be. > > But generally a good idea, patch below. > > Except Index would be a bit more useful than HI. ;-) Index may not matter at all in case of a TLBWR. But yes, will include index in the patch. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Problem with TLB mcheck!, Maciej W. Rozycki |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] Clean compiling for au1100fb.c, Rodolfo Giometti |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Problem with TLB mcheck!, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Problem with TLB mcheck!, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |