Re: [PATCH 3/6] 8xx: get rid of _PAGE_HWWRITE dependency in MMU.

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 00:00 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 05/10/2009 23:37:23:
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 23:25 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 05/10/2009 22:17:04:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 14:16 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > > Update the TLB asm to make proper use of _PAGE_DIRY and _PAGE_ACCESSED.
> > > > > Pros:
> > > > >  - I/D TLB Miss never needs to write to the linux pte.
> > > > >  - _PAGE_ACCESSED is only set on I/D TLB Error fixing accounting
> > > > >  - _PAGE_DIRTY is mapped to 0x100, the changed bit, and is set directly
> > > > >     when a page has been made dirty.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure here. You seem to still set those from asm. Is that necessary ?
> > >
> > > Well, yes. head_32.S also sets ACCESSED and DIRTY from asm so why not me?
> >
> > Don't look at the hash 32 code :-)
> 
> So what to look at then? :)

head_440.S on a recent 2.6

> > Most of the time you do anyways since the PTE isn't populated at all. At
> > which point, Linux will populate a PTE with DIRTY and ACCESSED already
> > set. It should be reasonably rare to actually fault because DIRTY and/or
> > ACCESSED are missing.
> 
> I tried to unconditionally trap to C in DTLB error but it just hung if I did
> that so the asm has to do something.

Sure, the question is what and how can we get away without it ? :-)

> > > > The approach I take on BookE is to simply not set these from asm, -and-
> > > > (this is important) not set write permission if dirty is not set in
> 
> Did you really mean "if dirty is not" ? I test RW for write permission.
> Dirty is just set when the first write happens after the permission check.

Sure but if dirty is cleared by the kernel, then you also need to remove
write permission in the TLB or it will miss setting dirty on the next
store to the page.

So dirty basically acts as a filter on RW, and accessed as a filter on
valid if you want.

> > Mostly only !ACCESSED -> no access permitted and !DIRTY -> no store
> > permitted and don't write anything back if !VALID.
> 
> That should be !RW and not !DIRTY I hope? Then trap
> first store and set DIRTY (without trapping to C)

No it's really !(RW _AND_ DIRTY) -> no store permitted, and
!(PRESENT _AND_ ACCESSED) -> no access permitted.

Cheers,
Ben.

> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ben.
> >
> > >  Jocke
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Ben.
> > > >
> > > > >  - Proper RO/RW mapping of user space.
> > > > >  - Free up 2 SW TLB bits in the linux pte(add back _PAGE_WRITETHRU ?)
> > > > > Cons:
> > > > >  - 4 more instructions in I/D TLB Miss, but the since the linux pte is
> > > > >    not written anymore, it should still be a win.