From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22602 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2007 22:41:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 22587 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2007 22:41:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:41:35 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B148F98342; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:41:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953B3981F2; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:41:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ikouo-00081c-4N; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:41:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Matt Mackall Cc: Grant Likely , linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Apparent kernel bug with GDB on ppc405 Message-ID: <20071024224130.GA30819@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Matt Mackall , Grant Likely , linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org, gdb@sourceware.org References: <20071024194640.GB19691@waste.org> <20071024204215.GC19691@waste.org> <20071024215421.GF19691@waste.org> <20071024223250.GI19691@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071024223250.GI19691@waste.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > Not completely implausible, but a) why isn't this seen on basically > every machine with software TLB? b) why does -local- GDB, which is > presumably doing much less work than gdbserver + network stack, not fail? You said it yourself. Local gdb does more work -> blows through more TLB entries. I can't answer you about the other half, but I'm pretty sure TLB invalidation is already supposed to be happening... somewhere. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery