linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Tester with IP27/IP30 needed

To: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: Tester with IP27/IP30 needed
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:49:58 +0000
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>, Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, debian-mips@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <479609A6.2020204@gentoo.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20080115112420.GA7347@alpha.franken.de> <20080115112719.GB7920@paradigm.rfc822.org> <20080117004054.GA12051@alpha.franken.de> <479609A6.2020204@gentoo.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:20:06AM -0500, Kumba wrote:

> No effect on Octane R14000A, as far as lockups.  Spikes the CPU usage in 'ps
> aux', but that's about it.

So far it seems R12000 and R14000 are unaffected.

> If I can get my plucky IP32 R10K to boot again soon, I may try it there for
> kicks and giggles.  Maybe we're also seeing a side effect of the R10K's spec
> exec knocking the non-cache-coherent machines out?
>
> Also, tried building the code with the R10K cache barrier on to see if 
> anything
> else changes?  Generally reserved for kernel stuff, but Peter once speculated
> userland might have a use for it.

It's a cache instruction so priviledged which means userspace can't execute
it.  It's also entirely unclear if a cache barrier instruction would make a
difference at all.

  Ralf

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