| To: | "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Context switches & interrupts affecting cache? |
| From: | "Mohamed Bamakhrama" <bamakhrama@gmail.com> |
| Date: | Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:51:21 +0200 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| Dkim-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CkCgBkEtTaryEtiBr9zBHlRi6G78rwOcF0yjb5iQYOkrdB6Qx+bffGSvx+otXR7EGKQVvb6+td1V7oES9pPycnY2zC6XJniAzRg4vbC1upSCHSTNa82oxPheXGQZ8L79tdKnpUsoSNpkt77fBmWpysBXAj0Zi5Urf7OHFqaQ86c= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pEebOiQoCExvWeFfk8Ig6NMbBx6GfGZQ9R+fPESb5P7QHNAvDTIMPTbI6LOJwJXJidU7HuPsE8p/qJ03ICH5Lo+cWJ9OWfSU9+lTNxicMv9xNNhIc3ToYg1MYIev/kxfdgQ4NjWTbAe4RiYwIqvYJFA77VZ+8Q3R8/fl7Q5Xcmo= |
| In-reply-to: | <20070803124023.GA16519@linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <40378e40708030359h3729e4b1m5390c258b29d6ae0@mail.gmail.com> <20070803124023.GA16519@linux-mips.org> |
| Reply-to: | bamakhrama@gmail.com |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On 8/3/07, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 12:59:41PM +0200, Mohamed Bamakhrama wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I have one question regarding context switches between user and kernel > > modes and interrupts. Do they invalidate the I-cache or D-cache? > > Never on MIPS. > > I call an architecture that would require a cacheflush for such a > context switch totally broken and yes, they exist - but nothing from > the MIPS family. Thanks Ralf for your reply. The problem that I face now is that the lock works only when I lock the I-cache lines *just* before calling the function OR when I lock the code and execute it with all interrupts disabled (via local_irq_save() & restore()). I always do the lock with interrupts disabled, but the strange thing is that it works only when the lock is *close* enough to the code and in my case "close" means just before calling it :-( That's why I was wondering if the kernel is doing something strange with the I-cache such as invalidation on interrupts or other events. Greetings, -- Mohamed |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Context switches & interrupts affecting cache?, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] Use -Werror on TX39/TX49 boards, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Context switches & interrupts affecting cache?, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | reg : SM722 Linux driver, mahendra varman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |