From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dyn-33.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.244.33] helo=caramon.arm.linux.org.uk) by www.linux.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 13TnMz-0003Kx-00 for linux-mm@kvack.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:32:14 +0100 Received: from flint.arm.linux.org.uk (root@flint [192.168.0.4]) by caramon.arm.linux.org.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14832 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:32:18 +0100 Received: (from rmk@localhost) by flint.arm.linux.org.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24159 for linux-mm@kvack.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:31:15 +0100 From: Russell King Message-Id: <200008291531.QAA24159@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Subject: filemap_sync over-eager at flushing? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:31:15 +0100 (BST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, I've been looking at the TLB/Cache code in 2.4.0-test7 (prompted by Dave Millers description in test8-pre1), and have come across something odd: filemap_sync() calls flush_{cache,tlb}_range(). In between, it eventually calls filemap_sync_pte(), which uses flush_{cache,tlb}_page(). But hang on, we've already done flush_cache_range(), and are going to do flush_tlb_range() in filemap_sync(), so isn't the flush_{cache,tlb}_page rather unnecessary? _____ |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+- | | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- --- | | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html / / | | +-+-+ --- -+- / | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\ / | | | --- | +-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ | -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/