On 04/08/14 14:05, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:08:50AM +0100, James Hogan wrote: >> Hi Aurelien, >> >> On 02/08/14 22:35, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33:55AM -0700, David Daney wrote: >>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/tlbex.c b/arch/mips/mm/tlbex.c >>>> index f99ec587..341add1 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/mips/mm/tlbex.c >>>> +++ b/arch/mips/mm/tlbex.c >>>> @@ -1299,6 +1299,8 @@ static void build_r4000_tlb_refill_handler(void) >>>> } >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MIPS_HUGE_TLB_SUPPORT >>>> uasm_l_tlb_huge_update(&l, p); >>>> + if (!use_bbit_insns()) >>>> + UASM_i_LW(&p, K0, 0, K1); >>>> build_huge_update_entries(&p, htlb_info.huge_pte, K1); >>>> build_huge_tlb_write_entry(&p, &l, &r, K0, tlb_random, >>>> htlb_info.restore_scratch); >>> >>> This patch fixes the issue, thanks. That said it doesn't look fully >>> correct. The test should be done the same way as for >>> build_fast_tlb_refill_handler. For example the fast handler is not >>> called on a 32-bit machine with bbit instructions, so it would need >>> to reload K0. >> >> In the non fast case build_is_huge_pte() will still use bbit1 if >> available after restoring K0, and I don't think the bbit1 would clobber >> K0 when the branch is taken, so I think the test for !use_bbit_insns() >> is correct. >> > Oh you are right! Therefore this second patch is: > > Reviewed-by: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx> Likewise: Reviewed-by: James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers James > Tested-by: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html