Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 01/10/2009 00:35:59:
>
>
> > > Had a look at linus tree and there is something I don't understand.
> > > Your fix, e0908085fc2391c85b85fb814ae1df377c8e0dcb, fixes a problem
> > > that was introduced by 8d30c14cab30d405a05f2aaceda1e9ad57800f36 but
> > > 8d30c14cab30d405a05f2aaceda1e9ad57800f36 was included in .31 and .31
> > > works and top of tree does not, how can that be?
> > >
> > > To me it seems more likely that some mm change introduced between .31 and
> > > top of tree is the culprit.
> > > My patch addresses the problem described in the comment:
> > > /* On 8xx, cache control instructions (particularly
> > > * "dcbst" from flush_dcache_icache) fault as write
> > > * operation if there is an unpopulated TLB entry
> > > * for the address in question. To workaround that,
> > > * we invalidate the TLB here, thus avoiding dcbst
> > > * misbehaviour.
> > > */
> > > Now you are using this old fix to paper over some other bug or so I think.
> >
> > There is something fishy with the TLB status, looking into the mpc862
> > manual I
> > don't see how it can work reliably. Need to dwell some more.
> > Anyhow, I have incorporated some of my findings into a new patch,
> > perhaps this will be the golden one?
>
> Well, I still wonder about what whole unpopulated entry business.
>
> >From what I can see, the TLB miss code will check _PAGE_PRESENT, and
> when not set, it will -still- insert something into the TLB (unlike
> all other CPU types that go straight to data access faults from there).
>
> So we end up populating with those unpopulated entries that will then
> cause us to take a DSI (or ISI) instead of a TLB miss the next time
> around ... and so we need to remove them once we do that, no ? IE. Once
> we have actually put a valid PTE in.
>
> At least that's my understanding and why I believe we should always have
> tlbil_va() in set_pte() and ptep_set_access_flags(), which boils down
> in putting it into the 2 "filter" functions in the new code.
>
> Well.. actually, the ptep_set_access_flags() will already do a
> flush_tlb_page_nohash() when the PTE is changed. So I suppose all we
> really need here would be in set_pte_filter(), to do the same if we are
> writing a PTE that has _PAGE_PRESENT, at least on 8xx.
>
> But just unconditionally doing a tlbil_va() in both the filter functions
> shouldn't harm and also fix the problem, though Rex seems to indicate
> that is not the case.
>
> Now, we -might- have something else broken on 8xx, hard to tell. You may
> want to try to bisect, adding back the removed tlbil_va() as you go
> backward, between .31 and upstream...
Found something odd, perhaps Rex can test?
I tested this on my old 2.4 and it worked well.
Jocke
>From dd0f213d51437bb48ff42c1c0e690f243266c133 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:59:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] powerpc, 8xx: DTLB Error must check for more errors.
DataTLBError do only check for store op's. I think this
is too narrow. Protection and and no translation errors
needs to be checked too.
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S
index 52ff8c5..ef8a5ce 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S
@@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ DataTLBError:
/* First, make sure this was a store operation.
*/
mfspr r10, SPRN_DSISR
- andis. r11, r10, 0x0200 /* If set, indicates store op */
+ andis. r11, r10, 0x4a00 /* If set, store, protection or no trans. */
beq 2f
/* The EA of a data TLB miss is automatically stored in the MD_EPN
--
1.6.4.4
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
