On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 12:47 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Lovely problem :-), benh mentioned it on IRC, but I never got around to
finding the email thread, thanks for the CC.
> What would be better for 2.6.38 and 2.6.37-stable? Moving that call to
> vunmap_page_range back under vb->lock, or the partial-Peter-patch below?
> And then what should be done for 2.6.39?
I think you'll also need the arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c changes that
cause context switches to flush the tlb_batch queues.
> --- 2.6.38-rc5/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_hash64.c 2010-02-24 10:52:17.000000000
> -0800
> +++ linux/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_hash64.c 2011-02-15 23:27:21.000000000 -0800
> @@ -38,13 +38,11 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct ppc64_tlb_batch, p
> * neesd to be flushed. This function will either perform the flush
> * immediately or will batch it up if the current CPU has an active
> * batch on it.
> - *
> - * Must be called from within some kind of spinlock/non-preempt region...
> */
> void hpte_need_flush(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> pte_t *ptep, unsigned long pte, int huge)
> {
> - struct ppc64_tlb_batch *batch = &__get_cpu_var(ppc64_tlb_batch);
> + struct ppc64_tlb_batch *batch = &get_cpu_var(ppc64_tlb_batch);
> unsigned long vsid, vaddr;
> unsigned int psize;
> int ssize;
> @@ -99,6 +97,7 @@ void hpte_need_flush(struct mm_struct *m
> */
> if (!batch->active) {
> flush_hash_page(vaddr, rpte, psize, ssize, 0);
> + put_cpu_var(ppc64_tlb_batch);
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -127,6 +126,7 @@ void hpte_need_flush(struct mm_struct *m
> batch->index = ++i;
> if (i >= PPC64_TLB_BATCH_NR)
> __flush_tlb_pending(batch);
> + put_cpu_var(ppc64_tlb_batch);
> }
>
> /*
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
