[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DCFFD56A5@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:16:33 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Christophe Leroy' <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Michael Ellerman" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
CC: "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] powerpc/32: Move entry_32 functions just after HEAD
functions.
From: Christophe Leroy
> By default, PPC8xx PINs an ITLB on the first 8M of memory in order
> to avoid any ITLB miss on kernel code.
> However, with some debug functions like DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and
> (soon to come) DEBUG_RODATA, the PINned TLB is invalidated soon
> after startup so ITLB missed start to happen also on the kernel code.
>
> In order to avoid any ITLB miss in a critical section, we have to
> ensure that their is no page boundary crossed between the setup of
> a new value in SRR0/SRR1 and the associated RFI. This cannot be done
> easily if entry_32 functions sits in the middle of other .text
> functions. By placing entry_32 just after the .head section (as already
> done for entry_64 on PPC64), we can more easily ensure the issue
> doesn't happen.
Shouldn't this be done by putting all the functions that 'matter'
into a named section instead of relying on the order of the input files?
(Which is what I think this is doing.)
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists