On Sat, 2013-12-07 at 09:06 -0500, Hong H. Pham wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-32.h
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-32.h
> index 27b2386..842846c 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-32.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-32.h
> @@ -84,10 +84,8 @@ static inline void pgtable_free_tlb(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> static inline void __pte_free_tlb(struct mmu_gather *tlb, pgtable_t table,
> unsigned long address)
> {
> - struct page *page = page_address(table);
> -
> tlb_flush_pgtable(tlb, address);
> - pgtable_page_dtor(page);
> - pgtable_free_tlb(tlb, page, 0);
> + pgtable_page_dtor(table);
> + pgtable_free_tlb(tlb, page_address(table), 0);
> }
Ok so your description of the problem confused me a bit, but I see that
in the !64K page, pgtable_t is already a struct page so yes, the
page_address() call here is bogus.
However, I also noticed that in the 64k page case, we don't call the dto
at all. Is that a problem ?
Also, Aneesh, shouldn't we just fix the disconnect here and have
pgtable_t always be the same type ? The way this is now is confusing
and error prone...
> #endif /* _ASM_POWERPC_PGALLOC_32_H */
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-64.h
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-64.h
> index f65e27b..256d6f8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-64.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgalloc-64.h
> @@ -144,11 +144,9 @@ static inline void pgtable_free_tlb(struct mmu_gather
> *tlb,
> static inline void __pte_free_tlb(struct mmu_gather *tlb, pgtable_t table,
> unsigned long address)
> {
> - struct page *page = page_address(table);
> -
> tlb_flush_pgtable(tlb, address);
> - pgtable_page_dtor(page);
> - pgtable_free_tlb(tlb, page, 0);
> + pgtable_page_dtor(table);
> + pgtable_free_tlb(tlb, page_address(table), 0);
> }
>
> #else /* if CONFIG_PPC_64K_PAGES */
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
