From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 8 16:20:19 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A14106566B; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:20:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stas@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx0.deglitch.com (backbone.deglitch.com [IPv6:2001:16d8:fffb:4::abba]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD908FC17; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:20:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stas@FreeBSD.org) Received: from stasss.yandex.ru (dhcp170-227-red.yandex.net [95.108.170.227]) by mx0.deglitch.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EEF698FC2E; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:20:16 +0400 (MSD) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:20:11 +0400 From: Stanislav Sedov To: Rafal Jaworowski Message-Id: <20090608202011.d3230356.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9CB8E78B-BED8-4995-9823-5CEE75A4F52F@semihalf.com> References: <200906081215.n58CFdOl029049@svn.freebsd.org> <20090608165646.95bb577e.stas@FreeBSD.org> <9CB8E78B-BED8-4995-9823-5CEE75A4F52F@semihalf.com> Organization: The FreeBSD Project X-Mailer: carrier-pigeon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Mon__8_Jun_2009_20_20_11_+0400_4UBYF.vq=ykwyqxC" Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Piotr =?UTF-8?Q?Zi=C4=99cik?= Subject: Re: svn commit: r193712 - head/sys/arm/arm X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:20:19 -0000 --Signature=_Mon__8_Jun_2009_20_20_11_+0400_4UBYF.vq=ykwyqxC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:56:51 +0200 Rafal Jaworowski mentioned: >=20 > Do you see anything wrong with calling cpu_xxx_inv_range directly? =20 > Writing back (if required) was already performed by =20 > pmap_remove_write(), and what we only need at this point is =20 > invalidation. pmap_dcache_wb_range would also eventually call =20 > cpu_XXX_inv_range if given a proper combination of flags (BTW: the =20 > do_inv flag in your example should be TRUE for our context to work), =20 > so it wouldn't be any simpler. I'd rather prefer doing explicitly what =20 > is needed without extra wrapping. >=20 I don't see anything particulary wrong with your approach. On the other hand, using pmap_dcache_wb_range will help to reduce the code duplication, so if one day we'll think that something else is needed to properly invalidate the PTE range, we'll be able to modify the pmap_dcache_wb_range accordingly without looking for other parts of code that does the same. --=20 Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE --Signature=_Mon__8_Jun_2009_20_20_11_+0400_4UBYF.vq=ykwyqxC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJKLTo/AAoJEKN82nOYvCd0RB4P/j7Wi18Fnnu90XyQvmKvnOyc G2G8Fb7qfWGJFJxdGBZRThOi8+yM8mEHEUlXMIITjY4Ff1aLHc6xiPD6SZTcawtT fd4juAdWJC6pc/kRtrSQh3v/Tb/VernZCyNjq4SViQ16x4vRMhLpQt7eOpze1IZz gpD6zMpjB0HKaj0TSuyLbm2ybQiTOR7yaQmbd00N7FUt8YteCDn8eNHjEvnKht3H EYclCxKxSG5VUFPdbL+2lUidjUGd8g4VL2/Ja/L2CU/L5sfar+Xk+qB/1HN1J4lT H9MThWXnu0ymEvlyROPX7KuqFjjN0ZgNYRG/KBeMMdymj2pbeGK15Ljdp7HbdpaY lS7mI8iNj/Ot7WReAqyPMXjIZf1WWVytH0QVZTdRzg29Drs3uo2DwM6fA9HCvndD tOjL2lYQEktaWxzdA2sr8R1r4or5KDWDNuDl6uNxmFnXVY2MvCkmzRjUg0xG/jTQ UN/8WnZOruiOjVyvfadVKpQSd+UMXpfDVa3l2+EC/kxp9SruvLRjR6zUhzpELno4 F/VemM39anSn1uB7pDXyPKCn0ADWLxb8tVKD30W3fbPV1Eq/T5KheSkY7PKrcLpv UhXVRqmISpWObqnE5cIjEKsWgdxnfmieU3M6s94xbHm4Pr5n94Ms03qWEPPkxsnj zQzYwHK6cB0MCstcAEPd =0k2S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Mon__8_Jun_2009_20_20_11_+0400_4UBYF.vq=ykwyqxC--