Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261356AbTIKQZV (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261389AbTIKQZV (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:21 -0400 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:40593 "EHLO mail.jlokier.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261356AbTIKQZM (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:25:10 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Virtual alias cache coherency results (was: x86, ARM, PARISC, PPC, MIPS and Sparc folks please run this) Message-ID: <20030911162510.GA29532@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: <20030910210416.GA24258@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030910233951.Q30046@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20030910233720.GA25756@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030911010702.W30046@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20030911123535.GB28180@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030911160929.A19449@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030911160929.A19449@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1698 Lines: 45 Russell King wrote: > Maybe those StrongARM chips don't exhibit the write buffer bug? Remember, > I said _SOME_ StrongARM-110 chips exhibit the problem. I did not say > _ALL_ StrongARM-110 chips exhibit the problem. I never assumed they all have the bug. Credit me with at least reading what you wrote before! :) The results indicate some StrongARM-110 systems which _don't_ exhibit the write buffer bug _do_ exhibit some _other_ cause of non-coherence. > > It means that your VIVT explanation and workaround does not explain > > those results, so I cannot have confidence that your workaround fixes > > those particular ARM devices. > > Well, as far as I'm concerned, I completely believe that I have explained > it entirely, and I still don't know why you're trying to make this more > difficult than it factually is. I'm thinking the same of you! :) All I asked is whether _all_ ARMs appear coherent to userspace now, and you replied with: > It's relatively simple, and I'm not sure why its causing such > misunderstanding. Let me try one more time: and proceeding to answer a different question to the one I asked. So, neither of us knows if all ARMs appear coherent to userspace, with the latest kernel, ... > Well, once you collect the kernel information and forward it to me, I > can have a look. ...until we learn what kernel versions the Netwinder folks are running, or they kindly run the test on a new kernel. Thanks, -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/