Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKUOC8WxRnzeMEcS-vao-GOzXnF+FN+3uk8R6TspRj23V7kYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190509085004.GE64514@C02TF0J2HF1T.local>
In-Reply-To: <20190509085004.GE64514@C02TF0J2HF1T.local>
From:   Salman Qazi <sqazi@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 11:14:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKUOC8WOZLv0cXUoTi-NwLO_J1s=5eGEPk0QPiDCAGvaKRTcAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: icache_is_aliasing and big.LITTLE
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thank you.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:50 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:45:03AM -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
> > What is the intention behind icache_is_aliasing on big.LITTLE systems
> > where some icaches are VIPT and others are PIPT? Is it meant to be
> > conservative in some sense or should it be made per-CPU?
>
> It needs to cover the worst case scenario across all CPUs, i.e. aliasing
> VIPT if one of the CPUs has this. We can't make it per-CPU because a
> thread performing cache maintenance might be migrated to another CPU
> with different cache policy (e.g. sync_icache_aliases()).
>
> --
> Catalin