Currently, we only mark the CPU cache as dirty if we skip a clflush.
This leads to some confusion where we have to ask if the object is in
the write domain or missed a clflush. If we always mark the cache as
dirty, this becomes a much simply question to answer.
The goal remains to do as few
Chris,
In set_cache_level, we change obj->cache_level then
update obj->cache_coherent but I think this order
has to be reversed because coherency needs to be
determined based on the previous cache_level, not
the new one.
After chaning code as shown below:
obj->cache_coherent =
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:55:56PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I tried this but I still see tests are failing.
> I wanted to debug it little further to find a specific
> condition where clflush is missing but didn't have
> enough time. I will look into this early next week.
Did
Hi Chris,
I tried this but I still see tests are failing.
I wanted to debug it little further to find a specific
condition where clflush is missing but didn't have
enough time. I will look into this early next week.
Thanks
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 03:46:42PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
Currently, we only mark the CPU cache as dirty if we skip a clflush.
This leads to some confusion where we have to ask if the object is in
the write domain or missed a clflush. If we always mark the cache as
dirty, this becomes a much simply question to answer.
The goal remains to do as few
