[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1443125663.32298.32.camel@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:14:23 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
CC: 'Christophe Leroy' <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Michael Ellerman" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/25] powerpc/8xx: Map IMMR area with 512k page at a
fixed address
On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 11:41 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Christophe Leroy
> > Sent: 22 September 2015 17:51
> ...
> > Traditionaly, each driver manages one computer board which has its
> > own components with its own memory maps.
> > But on embedded chips like the MPC8xx, the SOC has all registers
> > located in the same IO area.
> >
> > When looking at ioremaps done during startup, we see that
> > many drivers are re-mapping small parts of the IMMR for their own use
> > and all those small pieces gets their own 4k page, amplifying the
> > number of TLB misses: in our system we get 0xff000000 mapped 31 times
> > and 0xff003000 mapped 9 times.
>
> Isn't this a more general problem?
>
> If there are multiple remap requests for the same physical page
> shouldn't the kernel be just increasing a reference count somewhere
> and returning address in the same virtual page?
> This should probably happen regardless of the address.
> I presume it must be done for cacheable mappings.
Why would you assume that?
-Scott
--
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