From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linux-ppc-embedded list <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: pte_update and 64-bit PTEs on PPC32?
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:22:42 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1112826162.9568.175.camel@gaston> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c689550a30a3129f8576f78eaa6f7af4@freescale.com>
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:44 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Ben, I agree with you about having the flags in a single word so we can
> lock them properly. In the short term it appears that the issue I'm
> running into is explicit with ptep_get_and_clear():
>
> static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned
> long addr,
> pte_t *ptep)
> {
> return __pte(pte_update(ptep, ~_PAGE_HASHPTE, 0));
> }
>
> It appears that we should be returning the pte that was passed in,
> before its modified? (seems a little silly to me, why bother, the
> caller could do this -- i've posted to lkml on the issue?).
No, we should return the "old" PTE.
> Anyways,
> since pte_update only returns the lower 32-bits the wrong thing
> happens. The following seems to be a better implementation of
> ptep_get_and_clear() for ppc32 which resolves my issue:
>
> static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned
> long addr,
> pte_t *ptep)
> {
> pte_t tmp = *ptep;
> pte_update(ptep, ~_PAGE_HASHPTE, 0);
> return tmp;
> }
Hrm... I would still do it differently. I would read the "rpn only" part
non atomically and load/clear the other half atomically. Withotu that,
you may miss a bit set between the load and the update (for example,
_PAGE_HASHPTE may have been put in in between).
> If we are ok with this I'll send a patch upstream for it. I'd like to
> still discuss how to make this all proper long term. Currently,
> ptep_get_and_clear was the only user of pte_update that used the return
> value for anything but flags. One change would be for it to return
> just the flags portion of the pte it was given. Another would be for
> us to implement a proper 64-bit pte version of pte_update.
>
> - kumar
>
--
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-06 22:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-06 6:51 pte_update and 64-bit PTEs on PPC32? Kumar Gala
2005-04-06 6:53 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-04-06 16:44 ` Kumar Gala
2005-04-06 17:20 ` Chris Friesen
2005-04-06 17:58 ` Kumar Gala
2005-04-06 21:33 ` Kumar Gala
2005-04-08 8:26 ` Gabriel Paubert
2005-04-08 14:08 ` Kumar Gala
2005-04-08 18:44 ` Gabriel Paubert
2005-04-08 19:01 ` Kumar Gala
2005-04-08 21:04 ` Gabriel Paubert
2005-04-08 21:31 ` Dan Malek
2005-04-08 21:44 ` Gabriel Paubert
2005-04-08 23:32 ` Kumar Gala
2005-04-09 0:32 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-04-06 22:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2005-04-06 22:27 ` Kumar Gala
2005-04-07 11:15 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1112826162.9568.175.camel@gaston \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=kumar.gala@freescale.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).