From: "Wohlgemuth, Jason" <jason_wohlgemuth@gilbarco.com>
To: "'linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org'"
<linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Cc: "Royal, Bill" <bill_royal@gilbarco.com>
Subject: Low Memory / Software Emulation Exception / Performance
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:50:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200004111350.JAA25971@hoover.gilbarco.com> (raw)
Just a few more questions. After applying the head.S patch our software
emulation exceptions have gone away, although, I intend to go back and trip
the exception with a logic analyzer attached to verify everything with our
hardware engineer. However, this patch seems to induce ultra-slow
performance in areas where we map physical memory down to the user-level
with /dev/mem, my guess is that it has something to do with this:
>From: Peter Allworth <linsol@zeta.org.au <mailto:linsol@zeta.org.au>>
>Basically, there are a couple of bugs in the MMU code of the 8xx port.
First, the code assumes that the "write-protected" and "dirty" >attributes
of a page can be folded into a single flag. Unfortunately, when a process
forks, the data pages are set up for copy-on-write in >both the parent and
child processes so that they can be shared. This is done by marking those
pages "write-protected" which, in the >code as it stands, results in any
"dirty" pages being set back to "clean". Later, when the kernel is trying to
free up memory, it wrongly >assumes these pages are unmodified and discards
them! My solution to this problem is as follows. In
include/asm-ppc/pgtable.h, >rename 0x0100 (the page changed bit) as
_PAGE_HWWRITE and 0x0020 (currently the write-through cache bit) as
_PAGE_DIRTY. >Unfortunately this means the write-through function is lost
since there are no more bits left so, for now, redefine _PAGE_WRITETHRU >to
be the same as _PAGE_NO_CACHE. (This is a bit inefficient so the fix is only
temporary.)
Specifically, the part regarding _PAGE_WRITETHRU being redefined to
_PAGE_NO_CACHE, is this a correct assumption? Is anyone else running into
performance related issues with this patch applied?
Thanks,
Jason
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next reply other threads:[~2000-04-11 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-04-11 13:50 Wohlgemuth, Jason [this message]
2000-04-11 16:40 ` Low Memory / Software Emulation Exception / Performance Marcus Sundberg
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-04-11 17:20 Wohlgemuth, Jason
2000-04-11 18:43 Wohlgemuth, Jason
2000-04-12 0:43 ` Peter Allworth
2000-04-12 11:38 Wohlgemuth, Jason
2000-04-12 13:27 ` Dan Malek
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=200004111350.JAA25971@hoover.gilbarco.com \
--to=jason_wohlgemuth@gilbarco.com \
--cc=bill_royal@gilbarco.com \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.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).