question regarding organization of the pte hash table

[Neil Horman]

Dan-
	Thanks for your reply.   I appeciate your help!

> The MPC8xx family processors don't use a hash table.  We just use a two-level
> Linux page table and fill the TLBs using the software table walk as described
> in the manual.

	If we don't use a hash table to store pte's that don't currently exist in the
MMU two-level page table, then do we reconstruct pte's on the fly (from the
task's vm_area tree) for tasks which have had their pte's victimized from the
page table by another process (I.E. identical Effective Addresses and
conflicting ASID's)?

Thanks again!
Neil



Dan Malek wrote:
>
> Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > .... use of the PPC860 MMU (my processor in question),
>
> The MPC8xx family processors don't use a hash table.  We just use a two-level
> Linux page table and fill the TLBs using the software table walk as described
> in the manual.
>
> > .... memory context (CASID) using that same
>
> The MPC8xx identifies 16 possible ASIDs, plus a global identifier we use
> in the kernel.  The sixteen ASIDs are assigned to the 16 most active memory
> contexts.  If we require the use of a memory context that does not have an
> ASID assigned, we invalidate one of the existing ones and claim it.
>
> To minimize source code changes, we try to utilize as much common code as
> possible.  Sometimes, the same 'hash' functions are called on processors that
> don't use hash tables, because there is some TLB side effect we still want to
> cause.  Anything hash table related is skipped, but the TLB management is still
> applied.
>
>         -- Dan
>

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/