On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:13:57AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
I don't see any reason for them to be - when switching to another process
we'll generally do a full TLB flush anyway, so what's the point in making
these flushes atomic?
Consider:
flush_tlb_page()
first mcr - invalidates tlb single entry
--- context switch, invalidates entire tlb, inc dsb ---
something else runs
--- context switch, invalidates entire tlb, inc dsb, again ---
dsb
That context switch is harmless - we end up with the entire TLB being
invalidated and a DSB following. Now consider:
flush_tlb_page()
--- context switch, invalidates entire tlb, inc dsb ---
something else runs
--- context switch, invalidates entire tlb, inc dsb, again ---
preempt_disable()
first mcr - invalidates tlb single entry
dsb
preempt_enable()
Any difference? No. Without the preempt disable/enable fiddling? No.
flush_tlb_page()
preempt_disable()
first mcr - invalidates tlb single entry
dsb
preempt_enable()
--- context switch, invalidates entire tlb, inc dsb ---
something else runs
--- context switch, invalidates entire tlb, inc dsb, again ---
Any difference? No. Without the preempt disable/enable fiddling? No.
In every case of a preemption occuring in the middle of a tlb operation,
the ultimate result is identical irrespective of preempt control
sprinkling.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-