linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: flush_kernel_dcache_page() not needed ?

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: flush_kernel_dcache_page() not needed ?
From: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:32:48 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hEelf7CRmQdvOLOpK3HIEKQ0iHvYfSy1nhtKMr/P/Rg=; b=PSvJCcT4+lCU/CWKotgOIA1GLN6LxqzUdqgMslrPhxXfCHQxQ4RVBUgQDQHG+fyWakAStGDhOXN2S6UjUYcmvhGOFNBLRZTJibPyortuCom5a7GnABYwnqFkMIXO4glL40L/cXTsPgzCmmrwncio7+oWRrXZer77SKu5UtG1XmM=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=gt0ajb3ZgbJZfnVKzEMZz8CnYt4Fy8xNT4IPn+yAdzJCcMV1/vCcywURlCG60lndXgIw52n+GGW1mrGd7jOVAZYyefeoGKXGgeKocXkSVJ0yA+dyaTcXtav1oSVFU5161ui5SzU1LeNB5FitAdUwABbxEfL4Ex4LGf75hXwIzQI=
In-reply-to: <20070906.003320.25909195.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <46DC29F0.3060200@gmail.com> <20070904.005400.52128244.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <46DD53BE.2070004@gmail.com> <20070906.003320.25909195.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719)
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> Yes, there is an yet another path to "flush all dcache".
> 
> do_execve()
>   copy_strings()
>     flush_kernel_dcache_page()
>   search_binary_handler()
>     load_elf_binary()
>       flush_old_exec()
>         exec_mmap()
>           mmput()
>             exit_mmap()
>               flush_cache_mm()
>                 r4k_blast_dcache()
> 

BTW, flush_cache_mm() flushes (write back + invalidate ) the whole
data cache unconditionnaly, but I'm wondering if it's really necessary
for cpus which don't have any cache aliasing issues. After all they're
equivalent to physical caches, aren't they ?

thanks,
                Franck

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