On Tue, 20 May 2014 00:39:26 -0000, Chan Kim said:
> But still it's confusing. Can two virtual addresses from the "same process"
> (in init process, one for nocache pool, the other not) point to the same
> physical address?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. In general, the hardware
tags like non-cacheable and write-combining are applied to physical addresses,
not virtual.
And a moment's thought will show that treating the same address (whether it's
virtual or physical) as caching in one place and non-caching in another is just
*asking* for a stale-data bug when the non-caching reference updates data and
the caching reference thinks it's OK to use the non-flushed non-refreshed
cached data.
It's easy enough to test if two addresses from a single process can
point to the same physical address - do something like this:
/* just ensure these two map the same thing at different addresses */
foo = mmap(something,yaddayadda);
bar = mmap(something,yaddayadda);
/* modify via one reference */
*foo = 23;
/* you probably want a barrier call here so gcc doesn't screw you */
/* Now dereference it via the other reference */
printf("And what we read back is %d\n", *bar);
(Making this work is left as an exercise for the student :)
And figuring out why you need a barrier is fundamental to writing bug-free
code that uses shared memory. The file Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
is a good place to start.
Attachment:
pgpUDNIW789Fr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
