Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:05:44 +0000 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r242402 - in head/sys: kern vm Message-ID: <CAJ-FndCpcBTFpsdTLYoadG2P3oZFYq_viGSTNOc7YM5G66FFsg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1351778472.1120.117.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <201210311807.q9VI7IcX000993@svn.freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndDRkBS57e9mzZoJWX5ugJ0KBGxhMSO50KB8Wm8MFudjCA@mail.gmail.com> <1351707964.1120.97.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAJ-FndC7QwpNAjzQTumqTY6Sj_RszXPwc0pbHv2-pRGMqbw0ww@mail.gmail.com> <20121101100814.GB70741@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-FndARMhgCRYwo0%2BS4tZ=At6rHJSz_tsy-OtHRHZKkxL-sig@mail.gmail.com> <1351778472.1120.117.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:42 +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: >> On 11/1/12, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:33:51PM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: >> > A> > Doesn't this padding to cache line size only help x86 processors in an >> > A> > SMP kernel? I was expecting to see some #ifdef SMP so that we don't >> > pay >> > A> > a big price for no gain in small-memory ARM systems and such. But >> > maybe >> > A> > I'm misunderstanding the reason for the padding. >> > A> >> > A> I didn't want to do this because this would be meaning that SMP option >> > A> may become a completely killer for modules/kernel ABI compatibility. >> > >> > Do we support loading non-SMP modules on SMP kernel and vice versa? >> >> Actually that's my point, we do. >> >> Attilio >> >> > > Well we've got other similar problems lurking then. What about a module > compiled on an arm system that had #define CACHE_LINE_SIZE 32 and then > it gets run on a different arm system whose kernel is compiled with > #define CACHE_LINE_SIZE 64? That should not happen. Is that a real case where you build a module for an ARM family and want to run against a kernel compiled for another? CACHE_LINE_SIZE must not change during a STABLE release lifetime, of course, for the same arch. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndCpcBTFpsdTLYoadG2P3oZFYq_viGSTNOc7YM5G66FFsg>