From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DCDB2C0246 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:37:10 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1378939017.12204.409.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc 8xx: Fixing issue with CONFIG_PIN_TLB From: Scott Wood To: Christophe Leroy Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:36:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <201309111644.r8BGiuDZ016325@localhost.localdomain> References: <201309111644.r8BGiuDZ016325@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 18:44 +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Activating CONFIG_PIN_TLB is supposed to pin the IMMR and the first three > 8Mbytes pages. But the setting of the MD_CTR was missing so as the index is > decremented every DTLB update, the pinning of the third 8Mbytes page was > overwriting the DTLB entry for IMMR. > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy > > diff -ur linux-3.11.org/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S linux-3.11/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S > --- linux-3.11.org/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S 2013-09-02 22:46:10.000000000 +0200 > +++ linux-3.11/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S 2013-09-09 11:28:54.000000000 +0200 > @@ -862,6 +862,9 @@ > addis r11, r11, 0x0080 /* Add 8M */ > mtspr SPRN_MD_RPN, r11 > > + addi r10, r10, 0x0100 > + mtspr SPRN_MD_CTR, r10 > + > addis r8, r8, 0x0080 /* Add 8M */ > mtspr SPRN_MD_EPN, r8 > mtspr SPRN_MD_TWC, r9 I wonder why we don't start from entry 31 so we can actually make use of that autodecrement. What will happen when we load the first normal TLB entry later on? I don't see any setting of SPRN_MD_CTR after this code, so won't it overwrite entry 30 (the middle 8M) in the CONFIG_PIN_TLB case? Ben, would patches like this be considered bugfixes as far as merging goes, or would they be for next given that it's something that's never really worked right and hasn't been touched in years? -Scott