David Daney wrote:
> I cannot parse the meaning out of these last two sentences. The
> cacheflush() system call both exists and works. You want to change it?
Let me rewind a bit. I have a multithreaded binary running on multiple
physical CPUs. As part of a debugging mechanism, I want to make changes
to .text from a thread dedicated to the purpose. This requires at the
least icache flushes on all CPUs but also hazard avoidance measures on
all CPUs. So I understand anyway.
The cacheflush call will do the flush but not the hazard avoidance. In
order to solve my particular issue I am thinking about adding the hazard
avoidance into cacheflush for my particular application. It is not a
question of cacheflush being wrong, but of extending it to meet my
needs. In fact, it seems like a useful change -- it will allow an
application to do exactly what I want to do, and easily so, and would
seem a logical place for the functionality to reside.
Sorry if I seem a bit muddled -- this is extremely low level and not
what I deal with day to day.