> ralf> Vmalloc is probably innocent I'd rather guess cache flushing is
> ralf> broken on your platform.
>
> In 2.4.5, flush_cache_all() (and flush_tlb_all()) is called in
> vmalloc_area_pages(). I think this call protect us from virtual
> aliasing problem.
>
> By the way, does anybody have any problem with vmalloc on recent
> kernel?
>
> In somewhere between 2.4.6 and 2.4.9, the call to flush_cache_all()
> disappered from vmalloc_area_pages(). I have a data corruption
> problem in vmalloc()ed area without this call. I think we still need
> this call.
>
> --- linux-sgi-cvs/mm/vmalloc.c Tue Sep 18 05:16:31 2001
> +++ linux.new/mm/vmalloc.c Wed Nov 7 10:33:47 2001
> @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@
> int ret;
>
> dir = pgd_offset_k(address);
> + flush_cache_all();
> spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
> do {
> pmd_t *pmd;
> @@ -163,6 +164,7 @@
> ret = 0;
> } while (address && (address < end));
> spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
> + flush_tlb_all();
> return ret;
> }
In 2.4.5, vmalloc has these two lines in vmalloc_area_pages().
So what else may be the problem?
Thanks!
machael
