[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <347733d50909071128v63b2d8a1hd6a87a361c14017e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 11:28:05 -0700
From: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>
To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Cc: linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Machine check exception in kmap_coherent()
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Baechle<ralf@...ux-mips.org> wrote:
> Too complicated. The fault is happening because the non-SMTC code is trying
> to be terribly clever and pre-loading the TLB with a new wired entry. On
> SMTC where multiple processors are sharing a single TLB are more careful
> approach is needed so the code does a TLB probe and carefully and re-uses
> an existing entry, if any. Which happens to be just what we need.
>
> So how about below - only compile tested - patch?
That is an interesting idea. However, I am not sure we want the IPI
ISR to overwrite copy_user_highpage()'s TLB entry. That means that
when the interrupt returns, our coherent mapping will likely point to
a different page. It will avoid the machine check exception, but it
will potentially cause silent, intermittent data corruption instead.
Taking another cue from the SMTC implementation, though - my v2 patch
adds an extra set of fixmap addresses for the in_interrupt() case,
avoiding the VA conflict entirely. What do you think?
I tested this scheme on non-SMTC. I suspect that the same change is
required for MT + MP cores like the 1004K, but probably not MT only
cores like 34K which don't use cacheop IPIs.
--
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