Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 04/10/2009 22:26:42:
> On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:35 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 03/10/2009
> > 12:57:28:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 11:24 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So yes, there is a missing _tlbil_va() missing for 8xx somewhere
> > > > but there is something more too.
> > > > Maybe your new filter functions and my
> > > > powerpc, 8xx: DTLB Error must check for more errors.
> > > > will do the trick?
> > >
> > > Well, if we can't tell between a load and a store on a TLB miss, then
> > > we should probably let it create an unpopulated entry in all cases,
> > > so that we do take a proper DSI/ISI the second time around, which
> > > would then tell us where we come from...
> >
> > While looking closer on 8xx TLB handling I noticed we were taking
> > an extra TLB Error when making a page dirty. Tracked it down to:
> > static inline pte_t pte_mkdirty(pte_t pte) {
> > pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_DIRTY; return pte; }
> > pte_mkdirty does not set HWWRITE thus forcing a new
> > TLB error to clear it. Adding HWWRITE to pte_mkdirty fixes the
> > problem.
>
> We should just get rid of HWWRITE like I did for 44x and BookE.
I am trying :)
>
> > Looking at (especially pte_mkclean):
> > static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte) {
> > pte_val(pte) &= ~(_PAGE_RW | _PAGE_HWWRITE); return pte; }
> > static inline pte_t pte_mkclean(pte_t pte) {
> > pte_val(pte) &= ~(_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_HWWRITE); return pte; }
> >
> > it looks like a mistake not to include HWWRITE in pte_mkdirty(),
> > what do you think?
>
> Maybe yes. No big deal right now, we have more important problems
> to fix no ? :-)
The missing invalidate you guys need to work out. I have no clue
where to put it. If we are really lucky, getting rid of HWWRITE
might help :)
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
