Re: [PATCH 2.6.14] mm: 8xx MM fix for

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:44:32PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>  
> > Joakim!
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 03:32:52PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > Hi Marcelo
> > > 
> > > [SNIP] 
> > > > The root of the problem are the changes against the 8xx TLB 
> > > > handlers introduced
> > > > during v2.6. What happens is the TLBMiss handlers load the 
> > > > zeroed pte into
> > > > the TLB, causing the TLBError handler to be invoked (thats 
> > > > two TLB faults per 
> > > > pagefault), which then jumps to the generic MM code to 
> > setup the pte.
> > > > 
> > > > The bug is that the zeroed TLB is not invalidated (the same reason
> > > > for the "dcbst" misbehaviour), resulting in infinite 
> > TLBError faults.
> > > > 
> > > > Dan, I wonder why we just don't go back to v2.4 behaviour.
> > > 
> > > This is one reason why it is the way it is:
> > > 
> > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2005-January/016382.html
> > > This details are little fuzzy ATM, but I think the reason for the
> > > current
> > > impl. was only that it was less intrusive to impl.
> > 
> > Ah, I see. I wonder if the bug is processor specific: we 
> > don't have such
> > changes in our v2.4 tree and never experienced such problem.
> > 
> > It should be pretty easy to hit it right? (instruction 
> > pagefaults should
> > fail).
> 
> No, its pretty hard to trigger it. Read the all mails on the subject to
> see why.
> The one or two exception approach doesn't matter performancewise(at
> least for ITLB exceptions)
> I think.

Fine, let it continue the way it is then.