From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e34.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA09DDEF7 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:36:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l9RHaPgZ013994 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:36:25 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l9RHaPdQ109316 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:36:25 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l9RHaOFc011655 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:36:25 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [Powerpc] fix switch_slb handling of 1T ESID values From: Will Schmidt To: benh@kernel.crashing.org In-Reply-To: <1193458771.18243.55.camel@pasglop> References: <20071026204641.25514.45178.stgit@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> <1193458771.18243.55.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:36:23 -0500 Message-Id: <1193506583.11003.50.camel@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org Reply-To: will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 14:19 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 15:46 -0500, Will Schmidt wrote: > > [Powerpc] fix switch_slb handling of 1T ESID values > > > > Now that we have 1TB segment size support, we need to be using the > > GET_ESID_1T macro when comparing ESID values for pc,stack, and > > unmapped_base within switch_slb() when we're on a CPU that supports it. > > > > This also happens to fix a duplicate-slb-entry inspired machine-check > > exception I was seeing when trying to run java on a power6 partition. > > > > Tested on power6 and power5. > > > > Signed-Off-By: Will Schmidt > > Good catch ! > > A minor comment is maybe you could factor out the code better doing > something like a ESID_COMPARE() macro ? Yeah, thats a good idea. I'll spin up a new patch in the next day or so. It occurred to me that I should continue to use GET_ESID when the user address is < 1T too. > > > --- > > > > There is a similar bit of code in stab.c switch_stab(). Should this change also be made there? > > --- > > There is no machine that does stab and 1T segments. Ok, thanks for the clarification. -Will > > Ben. > > > > > arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c | 19 ++++++++++++++----- > > 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c > > index bbd2c51..0c527d7 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c > > @@ -193,16 +193,25 @@ void switch_slb(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm) > > return; > > slb_allocate(pc); > > > > - if (GET_ESID(pc) == GET_ESID(stack)) > > - return; > > + if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_1T_SEGMENT)) { > > + if (GET_ESID_1T(pc) == GET_ESID_1T(stack)) > > + return; > > + } else > > + if (GET_ESID(pc) == GET_ESID(stack)) > > + return; > > > > if (is_kernel_addr(stack)) > > return; > > slb_allocate(stack); > > > > - if ((GET_ESID(pc) == GET_ESID(unmapped_base)) > > - || (GET_ESID(stack) == GET_ESID(unmapped_base))) > > - return; > > + if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_1T_SEGMENT)) { > > + if ((GET_ESID_1T(pc) == GET_ESID_1T(unmapped_base)) > > + || (GET_ESID_1T(stack) == GET_ESID_1T(unmapped_base))) > > + return; > > + } else > > + if ((GET_ESID(pc) == GET_ESID(unmapped_base)) > > + || (GET_ESID(stack) == GET_ESID(unmapped_base))) > > + return; > > > > if (is_kernel_addr(unmapped_base)) > > return; > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev >