From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23629 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2013 14:02:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23619 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2013 14:02:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,GARBLED_BODY,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:02:27 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1ViPP1-0006h7-Mc from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:02:11 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:02:11 -0800 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:02:10 -0800 Message-ID: <528A1D83.7060905@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:12:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] Don't invalidate dcache when option stack-cache is changed References: <1383458049-20893-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1383458049-20893-9-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00464.txt.bz2 On 11/18/2013 05:44 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > If one wanted to remove the cache invalidation for the off->on > transition that seems reasonable, but if I do a backtrace, turn the > caching optimization off, and then do another backtrace, I'd want the > second one to not use the cache. YMMV. This behaviour is what we proposed in this patch. > > OTOH, if there was a command I could use to flush the cache after > turning off the stack cache optimization, then I could see leaving the > cache alone after the on->off transition. [I still think it'd be > preferable to invalidate the cache, but I can live with asking users > to live with having to manually flush the cache after turning off the > optimization.] IMO, cache to target memory is quite transparent to users. I can't find a case that user has to flush or invalidate cache. With this patch, we are lack of a way to flush the cache. I prefer to add a new command to explicitly invalidate cache like "cache invalidate" or "maint cache invalidate", if we think users really need this command. -- Yao (齐尧)