A separate GC idea - multiple D GCs

[max haughton]

On Sunday, 23 January 2022 at 12:30:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 January 2022 at 21:45:36 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 January 2022 at 19:43:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
>> Grøstad wrote:
>>> If you change the TLB, then affected address ranges should in 
>>> general be flushed although maybe this is too pessimistic in 
>>> the case of a fork.
>>
>> I assume you would only lose TLB, not cache.
>
> I wouldn't make any assumptions, what I get from a quick Google 
> search fits with what I've read on this topic before: on ARM a 
> TLB flush implies a cache flush, and 
> [tldp.org](https://tldp.org/LDP/khg/HyperNews/get/memory/flush.html) describes the pattern for Linux as: flush cache, modify, flush TLB.

L1 cache is often virtually addressed but physically tagged so 
that makes sense.