From owner-freebsd-smp Thu Dec 7 21:33:12 2000 From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 7 21:33:10 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (adsl-63-202-176-64.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.176.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C437E37B400 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB85gVN00523 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:42:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200012080542.eB85gVN00523@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netgraph and SMP In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Dec 2000 21:33:27 PST." <200012080533.eB85XRN00458@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 21:42:31 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > What happens if you write to a page that's marked non-cachable > > on the CPU on which you are running, but cacheable on another > > CPU? Does it do the right thing, and update the cache on the > > caching CPU? > > Er, what are you smoking Terry? You never 'update' the cache on another > processor; the other processor snoops your cache/memory activity and > invalidates its own cache based on your broadcasts. I should have added "if you're lucky" to this. Some platforms don't even go that far. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message