19.02.2014, 13:13, "Allen Pais" <allen.pais@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wednesday 19 February 2014 02:27 PM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> 19.02.2014, 12:12, "Allen Pais" <allen.pais@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c b/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c
>>>>> index 9eb10b4..24dcd29 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c
>>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/preempt.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/locallock.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/page.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/pgtable.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
>>>>> @@ -14,6 +15,7 @@
>>>>> #include <asm/oplib.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> extern struct tsb swapper_tsb[KERNEL_TSB_NENTRIES];
>>>>> +static DEFINE_LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK(tsb_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline unsigned long tsb_hash(unsigned long vaddr, unsigned long hash_sh
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -71,9 +73,9 @@ static void __flush_tsb_one(struct tlb_batch *tb, unsigned lon
>>>>> void flush_tsb_user(struct tlb_batch *tb)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct mm_struct *mm = tb->mm;
>>>>> - unsigned long nentries, base, flags;
>>>>> + unsigned long nentries, base;
>>>>>
>>>>> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mm->context.lock, flags);
>>>>> + local_lock(tsb_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> base = (unsigned long) mm->context.tsb_block[MM_TSB_BASE].tsb;
>>>>> nentries = mm->context.tsb_block[MM_TSB_BASE].tsb_nentries;
>>>>> @@ -90,7 +92,7 @@ void flush_tsb_user(struct tlb_batch *tb)
>>>>> __flush_tsb_one(tb, HPAGE_SHIFT, base, nentries);
>>>>> }
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mm->context.lock, flags);
>>>>> + local_unlock(tsb_lock);
>>>> It seems to be not good for me. Tsb setup is in tsb_grow() and it must
>>>> be synchronized with flushing. Flushing is also being made in flush_tsb_user_page()..
>>>>
>>>> Which last stack stack has you received with tb->active, permanently set to zero?
>>> I agree with you point about flushing in flush_tbs_user_page too. Like i said, this is
>>> a bit tricky to actually debug.
>>>
>>> Yes, tb->active was set to zero.
>> If tb->active is zero, flush_tsb_user() is never called, because of tlb_nr is permanently zero.
> Sorry, my bad. tb->active was set to one when I ran the test with the above patch.
It seems for me it's better to decide the problem not changing protector of tsb like in patch above.
You may get good stack without sun4v_data_access_exception error, which was in the first or second
message.
> - Allen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
