Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov> writes:
> How about <sys/cachectl.h>, and we just be basically compatible with the
> IRIX interface?   Maybe also implement cachectl(2)?  (make a range cacheable
> or uncacheable)

hmm.  i wonder if there are VM system interactions with making a range
of memory cacheable or uncacheable.

e.g. the sparc has to Do The Right Thing re: object alignment for
objects shared between processes, and if it can't it "has" to mark
them uncacheable.

Are there any interactions with that type of thing, that require the
VM system to become involved?


Is there any reason to make cachectl() anything other than a normal
syscall(), like mprotect(), etc.


cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.