[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803251036410.15870@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [11/14] vcompound: Fallbacks for order 1 stack allocations on
IA64 and x86
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > I am familiar with that area and I am resonably sure that this
> > is an issue on IA64 under some conditions (the processor decides to spill
> > some registers either onto the stack or into the register backing store
> > during tlb processing). Recursion (in the kernel context) still expects
> > the stack and register backing store to be available. ccing linux-ia64 for
> > any thoughts to the contrary.
>
> Christoph is correct ... IA64 pins the TLB entry for the kernel stack
> (which covers both the normal C stack and the register backing store)
> so that it won't have to deal with a TLB miss on the stack while handling
> another TLB miss.
I thought the only pinned TLB entry was for the per cpu area? How does it
pin the TLB? The expectation is that a single TLB covers the complete
stack area? Is that a feature of fault handling?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists