On 12/13/2016 12:05 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 12/13/2016 12:01 PM, Justin Chen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Leonid Yegoshin
<Leonid.Yegoshin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 03:09 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
Well, I prefer the collection of 3 flags:
flush_required - or flush to next level is required to force
coherency
between this level and next after update of this level
invalidate_required - or invalidate is required to force coherency
between
this level and next after update of next level
coherent_to_level - object is coherent with this level (only one
domain of
coherency on this level is assumed)
A "flush" has always been an ambiguous term -- meaning anything from
"write-back", through "write-back+invalidate" to "invalidate". What is
"flush" is supposed to exactly mean here? If specifically any of the two
formers (the latter is obviously the other flag), then I suggest using the
respective name, or otherwise if it is meant to be generic "do what is
needed", then perhaps "synchronize" will work, like with the name of the
SYNCI instruction?
Well, I am not expert in choosing names, you know. I just would like to make
a distinguishing between "transfer data from this level to next one" - any
way - writeback or write-back-invalidate, and "clear data in this level to
be pulled on demand from next level".
This is an information purpose as Florian described, so details can be
skipped. The only useful info here - some efforts are needed after event
(see above) and that efforts are not cheap from performance point of view.
If we put here details then it is a long way because we need a lot of
details, see my original post. However, I would like to differ "flush" and
"invalidate" because it is triggered by different kind of event (from
upstream or from downstream).
- Leonid.
I can add in the flags mentioned by Leonid. However, I would suggest
these flags be added in as a separate patch series as it will require
modifications to the cacheinfo code to propagate the information to
the sysfs.
Would it be ok to accept this patch series as is while I work with the
cacheinfo maintainers to include these new flags?
Seems entirely reasonable to me. You may want to make a new patch
submission without "RFC", just to make it clear that this is a patch
ready for review/acceptance.
Thanks!
I agree.
- Leonid.
