> Mike wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by TLB translations required for hit
> > > cacheops. If you mean the Index Writeback or Index Invalidate
> > > functions, note that you can (and should) use a kseg0 address to
> > > do this.
>
> Mike was proposing a kseg0 address translating to the right physical
> address, and used with a hit-type cacheop. I believe Ralf (and Linux)
> are just assuming that's no good because it doesn't work if you have
> cacheable memory above 512Mbytes physical address.
More importantly, it doesn't work in the case of virtually tagged caches,
such as those in the SB-1 and MIPS 20K.
> I wonder whether anything really bad would happen if you temporarily
> changed the (machine) ASID to that of the address space you wanted to
> invalidate?
I looked at that when we were investigating the aforementioned
issues with virtually-tagged I-caches. It looked to me as if exceptions
can occur during the invalidation, and that processing those exceptions
can cause signals to be raised to the current process in a manner that
assumes that the TLB and ASID are coherent and in sync with
the scheduler. It may be that just changing the ASID temporarily
would work - most of the time. It may even be that, with a bit
of lashing down of state, disabling of interrupts, setting of flags
to be read by traps.c/signal.c, etc, etc, it could be made bulletproof.
But I don't think that the simple, obvious hack is safe.
Kevin K.
