Re: Fast-track extension proposal for H/W PTE A/D updating


Roger Espasa
 

I would concur with Scott above. Clarifications to the spec belong in the spec itself, not inside an extension. If the Architecture Review Committee suggested otherwise, is it because the clarifications only pertain to the extension? 


On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 3:16 AM Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...> wrote:


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 6:57 PM Scott Johnson <scott.johnson@...> wrote:

> On Oct 26, 2022, at 7:49 PM, Ved Shanbhogue <ved@...> wrote:
>
> I feel the following may be considered as significant:
>
> 1. Clarification that the rules outlined apply to PTE updates
>   caused by an explicit or an implicit memory access.
>
> 2. The text where the privileged spec stated "and the sequence is
>   interruptible." is updated to clarify that a trap may occur
>   between PTE update and the memory access that caused the PTE
>   update.
>

If these two are intended only as clarifications of what the privileged spec already says, then these clarifications should be made to the privileged spec, not here in this optional extension.

This path was suggested by the Architecture Review Committee. As noted up thread, hardware updateable PTE A/D bits were already in the spec. This extension is coining a name, and providing a bit more clarity to existing text.






Join {tech-privileged@lists.riscv.org to automatically receive all group messages.