[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100702062925.GA11877@shutemov.name>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:29:25 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: g@...temov.name, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Anfei Zhou <anfei.zhou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 071/149] ARM: 6166/1: Proper prefetch abort handling on
pre-ARMv6
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:12:07AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:59:11AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:48:37PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > One possibility is that for some reason you're using the legacy prefetch
> > > abort code or pre-IFSR code, which will always tell the kernel that its
> > > a translation fault - and in this case, this patch would improve the
> > > situation. What kernel version are you using?
> >
> > 2.6.32
>
> Should be recent enough.
>
> > If you run this test in loop on kernel without the patch you'll finally
> > get hung instead SIGSEGV.
> >
> > It seems the patch fixes more than it was written for. :)
>
> Have you investigated the IFSR and IFAR values, and the corresponding
> page table state?
In oprofile dump, I saw do_PrefetchAbort() and do_translation_fault() at
the top, so I guess IFSR is 5. I don't known value IFAR, but I'll see.
> I'm not going to be able to run your test code for
> a few days.
It's only few minutes or less if you are lucky.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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