----- Original Message -----
> On 02/16/2012 09:52 PM, Dave Anderson wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > ...
> >>> So just do the same thing -- no verbose expanation is required.
> >>
> >> There are two ways to fix this :
> >>
> >> 1) Fix dump_mem_map*() to print the header only when there is
> >> information to dump.
> >>
> >> --- a/memory.c
> >> +++ b/memory.c
> >> @@ -4637,13 +4637,6 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo *mi)
> >> continue;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (print_hdr) {
> >> - if (!(pc->curcmd_flags& HEADER_PRINTED))
> >> - fprintf(fp, "%s", hdr);
> >> - print_hdr = FALSE;
> >> - pc->curcmd_flags |= HEADER_PRINTED;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >> pp = section_mem_map_addr(section);
> >> pp = sparse_decode_mem_map(pp, section_nr);
> >> phys = (physaddr_t) section_nr *
> >> PAGES_PER_SECTION()
> >> * PAGESIZE();
> >> @@ -4854,6 +4847,13 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo *mi)
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (bufferindex> buffersize) {
> >> + if (print_hdr) {
> >> + if (!(pc->curcmd_flags&
> >> HEADER_PRINTED))
> >> + fprintf(fp, "%s",
> >> hdr);
> >> + print_hdr = FALSE;
> >> + pc->curcmd_flags |=
> >> HEADER_PRINTED;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> fprintf(fp, "%s", outputbuffer);
> >> bufferindex = 0;
> >> }
> >> @@ -4867,6 +4867,13 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo *mi)
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (bufferindex> 0) {
> >> + if (print_hdr) {
> >> + if (!(pc->curcmd_flags& HEADER_PRINTED))
> >> + fprintf(fp, "%s", hdr);
> >> + print_hdr = FALSE;
> >> + pc->curcmd_flags |= HEADER_PRINTED;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> fprintf(fp, "%s", outputbuffer);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Similarly for the dump_mem_map().
> >>
> >> 2) Fix ppc_pgd_vtop() to return FALSE if the paddr>
> >> machdep->memsize
> >>
> >> --- a/ppc.c
> >> +++ b/ppc.c
> >> @@ -438,6 +438,10 @@ ppc_pgd_vtop(ulong *pgd, ulong vaddr,
> >> physaddr_t
> >> *paddr, int verbose)
> >>
> >> *paddr = PAGEBASE(pte) + PAGEOFFSET(vaddr);
> >>
> >> + if (*paddr> machdep->memsize)
> >> + /* We don't have pages above System RAM */
> >> + return FALSE;
> >> +
> >> return TRUE;
> >>
> >> no_page:
> >>
> >> I prefer the (1). What do you think ?
> >
> > Hi Suzuki,
> >
> > Hmmm -- with respect to (1), I suppose that would work, although
> > given that both x86 and x86_64 pass through dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM()
> > without printing the header in a non-existent-page case, I don't
> > understand why ppc is different?
> Yep, I digged into that a little, but not deep enough to debug it with
> a dump. Nothing was evident from the code :(.
Right -- I tried debugging it from the x86 and x86_64 perspective,
and couldn't see why ppc would be different! ;-)
Oh well...
> >
> > And I'm thinking that a more general solution might be to change
> > do_vtop() here, and not even bother calling the relevant
> > dump_mem_map()
> > function if there's no page struct associated with it:
> >
> > --- memory.c 10 Feb 2012 16:41:38 -0000 1.273
> > +++ memory.c 16 Feb 2012 14:18:03 -0000
> > @@ -2796,7 +2796,7 @@
> > do_vtop(ulong vaddr, struct task_context *tc, ulong vtop_flags)
> > {
> > physaddr_t paddr;
> > - ulong vma;
> > + ulong vma, pageptr;
> > int page_exists;
> > struct meminfo meminfo;
> > char buf1[BUFSIZE];
> > @@ -2930,7 +2930,7 @@
> >
> > fprintf(fp, "\n");
> >
> > - if (page_exists) {
> > + if (page_exists&& phys_to_page(paddr,&pageptr)) {
> > if ((pc->flags& DEVMEM)&& (paddr>=
> > VTOP(vt->high_memory)))
> > return;
> > BZERO(&meminfo, sizeof(struct meminfo));
> >
> > And w/respect to (2), wouldn't that just cause the generic kvtop()
> > to fail? And if so, it kind of re-defines the meaning of kvtop(),
> > even though its current callers pretty much expect to receive
> > a legitimate physical memory address. But if a virtual address
> > resolves to a PTE with any legitimate address in it, then kvtop()
> > should return whatever's there.
>
> Yep, I agree.
>
> >
> > But I'm still wondering what makes ppc behave differently in
> > dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM()?
> >
> Btw, we don't have SPARSMEM on ppc44x, and end up in dump_mem_map(). I was
> patching both the functions to cover all the platforms.
OK, so do you agree that just patching do_vtop() makes more sense?
>
> Also, I found out that we need to abstract away the definition of Page flags
> as well, since it differes for different platforms (except for the _PAGE_PRESENT).
> I will include the changes in the next version.
OK.
Thanks,
Dave
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
