* Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after
@ 2010-04-29 23:58 David Miller
2010-04-30 5:57 ` Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using Тхай Кирилл
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2010-04-29 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sparclinux
From: Тхай Кирилл <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:28:35 +0400
> The problem is that some "big" swap entries corresponds to "none" ptes and
> they can't be unused in the function zap_pte_range when program is ending.
> The function free_swap_and_cache isn't calls for that swap entries. And
> swapoff syscall spin in infinity loop.
> I hope my patch can be useful. Kernel version 2.6.33.3.
I think we'll need to rearrange the bit usage to fix this instead of turning
this off entirely.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using
2010-04-29 23:58 [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
@ 2010-04-30 5:57 ` Тхай Кирилл
2010-04-30 6:04 ` Tkhai Kirill
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Тхай Кирилл @ 2010-04-30 5:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sparclinux
29.04.10, 16:58, "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>:
> From: Тхай Кирилл
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:28:35 +0400
>
> > The problem is that some "big" swap entries corresponds to "none" ptes and
> > they can't be unused in the function zap_pte_range when program is ending.
> > The function free_swap_and_cache isn't calls for that swap entries. And
> > swapoff syscall spin in infinity loop.
> > I hope my patch can be useful. Kernel version 2.6.33.3.
>
> I think we'll need to rearrange the bit usage to fix this instead of turning
> this off entirely.
Thank you for your reply.
I can mistake, but it seems to me, that pte_none is more wide check, than belonging pte to mmu device. In other case none_mask must be something like 0xF0000004, because hardware ignores ptes with zeroed lower two bits.
Execuse me if I expend your time.
Kirill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using
2010-04-29 23:58 [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
2010-04-30 5:57 ` Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using Тхай Кирилл
@ 2010-04-30 6:04 ` Tkhai Kirill
2010-05-26 6:38 ` [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tkhai Kirill @ 2010-04-30 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sparclinux
30.04.10, 09:57, "Тхай Кирилл" <tkhai@yandex.ru>:
>
>
> 29.04.10, 16:58, "David Miller" :
>
> > From: Тхай Кирилл
> > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:28:35 +0400
> >
> > > The problem is that some "big" swap entries corresponds to "none" ptes and
> > > they can't be unused in the function zap_pte_range when program is ending.
> > > The function free_swap_and_cache isn't calls for that swap entries. And
> > > swapoff syscall spin in infinity loop.
> > > I hope my patch can be useful. Kernel version 2.6.33.3.
> >
> > I think we'll need to rearrange the bit usage to fix this instead of turning
> > this off entirely.
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> I can mistake, but it seems to me, that pte_none is more wide check, than belonging pte to mmu device. In other case none_mask must be something like 0xF0000004, because hardware ignores ptes with zeroed lower two bits.
> Execuse me if I expend your time.
>
> Kirill
>
that is 0xF0000003 :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after
2010-04-29 23:58 [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
2010-04-30 5:57 ` Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using Тхай Кирилл
2010-04-30 6:04 ` Tkhai Kirill
@ 2010-05-26 6:38 ` David Miller
2010-05-27 20:28 ` Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using Tkhai Kirill
2010-05-27 20:41 ` [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2010-05-26 6:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sparclinux
From: Тхай Кирилл <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:57:19 +0400
> I can mistake, but it seems to me, that pte_none is more wide check,
> than belonging pte to mmu device.
Not exactly. pte_none() should be true if the PTE encodes nothing,
not a swap entry, not a MMU PTE, nothing at all.
> In other case none_mask must be something like 0xF0000004, because
> hardware ignores ptes with zeroed lower two bits.
It seems that the correct thing to do is to kill this none_mask thing
entirely.
Could you try this patch instead of your's?
Thanks!
--
sparc32: Kill none_mask, it's bogus.
For some reason, the pte_none() calculation for srmmu sparc32
chips was masking out the top 4 bits. That doesn't make any
sense, as those are just some of the physical bits of the PTE
encoding.
Furthermore, this mistake breaks things when the offset of of a swap
entry has a large enough offset as reported by Тхай Кирилл.
Sun4c always set it to zero, so it's really completely useless,
kill it.
Reported-by: Тхай Кирилл <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
---
arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h | 5 ++---
arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c | 2 --
arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c | 3 ---
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
index 77f906d..0ece77f 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
@@ -142,13 +142,12 @@ BTFIXUPDEF_CALL_CONST(unsigned long, pgd_page_vaddr, pgd_t)
#define pmd_page(pmd) BTFIXUP_CALL(pmd_page)(pmd)
#define pgd_page_vaddr(pgd) BTFIXUP_CALL(pgd_page_vaddr)(pgd)
-BTFIXUPDEF_SETHI(none_mask)
BTFIXUPDEF_CALL_CONST(int, pte_present, pte_t)
BTFIXUPDEF_CALL(void, pte_clear, pte_t *)
static inline int pte_none(pte_t pte)
{
- return !(pte_val(pte) & ~BTFIXUP_SETHI(none_mask));
+ return !pte_val(pte);
}
#define pte_present(pte) BTFIXUP_CALL(pte_present)(pte)
@@ -160,7 +159,7 @@ BTFIXUPDEF_CALL(void, pmd_clear, pmd_t *)
static inline int pmd_none(pmd_t pmd)
{
- return !(pmd_val(pmd) & ~BTFIXUP_SETHI(none_mask));
+ return !pmd_val(pmd);
}
#define pmd_bad(pmd) BTFIXUP_CALL(pmd_bad)(pmd)
diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c b/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c
index f5f75a5..b0b43aa 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c
@@ -2215,8 +2215,6 @@ void __init ld_mmu_srmmu(void)
BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pmd_page, srmmu_pmd_page, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pgd_page_vaddr, srmmu_pgd_page, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
- BTFIXUPSET_SETHI(none_mask, 0xF0000000);
-
BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pte_present, srmmu_pte_present, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pte_clear, srmmu_pte_clear, BTFIXUPCALL_SWAPO0G0);
diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c b/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c
index cf38846..4289f90 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c
@@ -2087,9 +2087,6 @@ void __init ld_mmu_sun4c(void)
BTFIXUPSET_CALL(set_pte, sun4c_set_pte, BTFIXUPCALL_STO1O0);
- /* The 2.4.18 code does not set this on sun4c, how does it work? XXX */
- /* BTFIXUPSET_SETHI(none_mask, 0x00000000); */ /* Defaults to zero? */
-
BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pte_pfn, sun4c_pte_pfn, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
#if 0 /* PAGE_SHIFT <= 12 */ /* Eek. Investigate. XXX */
BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pmd_page, sun4c_pmd_page, BTFIXUPCALL_ANDNINT(PAGE_SIZE - 1));
--
1.7.0.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using
2010-04-29 23:58 [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 6:38 ` [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
@ 2010-05-27 20:28 ` Tkhai Kirill
2010-05-27 20:41 ` [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tkhai Kirill @ 2010-05-27 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sparclinux
Yes, it solves the problem.
26.05.10, 10:38, "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>:
> From: Тхай Кирилл
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:57:19 +0400
>
> > I can mistake, but it seems to me, that pte_none is more wide check,
> > than belonging pte to mmu device.
>
> Not exactly. pte_none() should be true if the PTE encodes nothing,
> not a swap entry, not a MMU PTE, nothing at all.
>
> > In other case none_mask must be something like 0xF0000004, because
> > hardware ignores ptes with zeroed lower two bits.
>
> It seems that the correct thing to do is to kill this none_mask thing
> entirely.
>
> Could you try this patch instead of your's?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> sparc32: Kill none_mask, it's bogus.
>
> For some reason, the pte_none() calculation for srmmu sparc32
> chips was masking out the top 4 bits. That doesn't make any
> sense, as those are just some of the physical bits of the PTE
> encoding.
>
> Furthermore, this mistake breaks things when the offset of of a swap
> entry has a large enough offset as reported by Тхай Кирилл.
>
> Sun4c always set it to zero, so it's really completely useless,
> kill it.
>
> Reported-by: Тхай Кирилл
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller
> ---
> arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h | 5 ++---
> arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c | 2 --
> arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c | 3 ---
> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
> index 77f906d..0ece77f 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
> @@ -142,13 +142,12 @@ BTFIXUPDEF_CALL_CONST(unsigned long, pgd_page_vaddr, pgd_t)
> #define pmd_page(pmd) BTFIXUP_CALL(pmd_page)(pmd)
> #define pgd_page_vaddr(pgd) BTFIXUP_CALL(pgd_page_vaddr)(pgd)
>
> -BTFIXUPDEF_SETHI(none_mask)
> BTFIXUPDEF_CALL_CONST(int, pte_present, pte_t)
> BTFIXUPDEF_CALL(void, pte_clear, pte_t *)
>
> static inline int pte_none(pte_t pte)
> {
> - return !(pte_val(pte) & ~BTFIXUP_SETHI(none_mask));
> + return !pte_val(pte);
> }
>
> #define pte_present(pte) BTFIXUP_CALL(pte_present)(pte)
> @@ -160,7 +159,7 @@ BTFIXUPDEF_CALL(void, pmd_clear, pmd_t *)
>
> static inline int pmd_none(pmd_t pmd)
> {
> - return !(pmd_val(pmd) & ~BTFIXUP_SETHI(none_mask));
> + return !pmd_val(pmd);
> }
>
> #define pmd_bad(pmd) BTFIXUP_CALL(pmd_bad)(pmd)
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c b/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c
> index f5f75a5..b0b43aa 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c
> @@ -2215,8 +2215,6 @@ void __init ld_mmu_srmmu(void)
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pmd_page, srmmu_pmd_page, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pgd_page_vaddr, srmmu_pgd_page, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
>
> - BTFIXUPSET_SETHI(none_mask, 0xF0000000);
> -
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pte_present, srmmu_pte_present, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pte_clear, srmmu_pte_clear, BTFIXUPCALL_SWAPO0G0);
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c b/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c
> index cf38846..4289f90 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/sun4c.c
> @@ -2087,9 +2087,6 @@ void __init ld_mmu_sun4c(void)
>
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(set_pte, sun4c_set_pte, BTFIXUPCALL_STO1O0);
>
> - /* The 2.4.18 code does not set this on sun4c, how does it work? XXX */
> - /* BTFIXUPSET_SETHI(none_mask, 0x00000000); */ /* Defaults to zero? */
> -
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pte_pfn, sun4c_pte_pfn, BTFIXUPCALL_NORM);
> #if 0 /* PAGE_SHIFT <= 12 */ /* Eek. Investigate. XXX */
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pmd_page, sun4c_pmd_page, BTFIXUPCALL_ANDNINT(PAGE_SIZE - 1));
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after
2010-04-29 23:58 [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-27 20:28 ` Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using Tkhai Kirill
@ 2010-05-27 20:41 ` David Miller
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2010-05-27 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sparclinux
From: Tkhai Kirill <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 00:28:03 +0400
> Yes, it solves the problem.
Thanks for finding this problem and testing the final fix.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-05-27 20:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-04-29 23:58 [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
2010-04-30 5:57 ` Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using Тхай Кирилл
2010-04-30 6:04 ` Tkhai Kirill
2010-05-26 6:38 ` [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
2010-05-27 20:28 ` Re: [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after intensive swap using Tkhai Kirill
2010-05-27 20:41 ` [PATCH]sparc32: Fix impossibility of swap disabling after David Miller
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.