From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org (Gilles Chanteperdrix)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:35:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mm: avoid attempting to flush the gate_vma with
 VIVT caches
In-Reply-To: <20120722150954.GB29535@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1342455826-9425-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <20120719122814.GE29153@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <5009C26B.6080901@xenomai.org> <500AAC2B.5060300@xenomai.org>
 <20120721143517.GB26790@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <500ABF78.10208@xenomai.org> <500AC109.3060708@xenomai.org>
 <20120722130355.GA29138@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <500BFF6B.3040602@xenomai.org>
 <20120722150954.GB29535@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <500C1DC0.3080703@xenomai.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 07/22/2012 05:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:26:03PM +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 07/22/2012 03:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 03:47:37PM +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> On 07/21/2012 04:40 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On 07/21/2012 04:35 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> It may be writable, but we never actually write to it after it has been
>>>>>> initialised so there's no need to worry about caching issues (the cache is
>>>>>> flushed in devicemaps_init).
>>>>>
>>>>> Except if CONFIG_TLS_REG_EMUL is enabled
>>>>
>>>> is disabled I mean.
>>>
>>> Well spotted! I disagree about the address being flushed though -- it looks
>>> to me like we flush from 0xffff0000 - 0xffff1000, which is what we want. Why
>>> do you think we're flushing from the linear mapping?
>>
>> I do not think we're flushing from the linear mapping, I believe the
>> address used by the elf_core_dump function (elf_core_dump -> kmap ->
>> page_address), to copy the page data to the core is the linear mapping
>> address, which is the reason why we need the flush at all.
> 
> Ok, good, sounds like we're singing the same tune at last. If you're happy
> with my proposed change to the original patch and Uros could re-test, then I
> think we're in business again.

It is OK for me.

-- 
                                                                Gilles.