On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:53:29 +0100 (BST), "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It might add a little overhead to usual TLB refill handling. The > > overhead might be neglectable, but I'm not sure. > > There is no need to change the refill handler -- only the general TLBL > exception has to be modified. And this one may be not too critical -- the > change required is in the path to mark pages accessed. Is the path > frequent enough to seek a complex solution while a simple one would just > work? Yes, my description was wrong. general TLBL handling, not TLB refill handling. Hmm, it seems not so critical indeed. Then "take 2" patch would be exactly what you preferred. http://www.linux-mips.org/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=linux-mips&i=20060710.234010.07457279.anemo%40mba.ocn.ne.jp Any comments about that? --- Atsushi Nemoto
