From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3xPlJs00WpzDqjF for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2017 23:39:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3xPlJr6Nrwz8t7L for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2017 23:39:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pg0-x22a.google.com (mail-pg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3xPlJq2yWrz9sN7 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2017 23:39:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v189so18077057pgd.2 for ; Sat, 05 Aug 2017 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 23:39:17 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Andreas Schwab Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: 4.13-rc3: Unrecoverable exception 4100 Message-ID: <20170805233917.72e49d2f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <877eyjkt0u.fsf@linux-m68k.org> References: <87vam3lhtn.fsf__12885.8019285419$1501844971$gmane$org@linux-m68k.org> <87fud7ktqf.fsf__17563.3519575515$1501875675$gmane$org@linux-m68k.org> <877eyjkt0u.fsf@linux-m68k.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 21:54:57 +0200 Andreas Schwab wrote: > No, this is really a 4.13-rc1 regression. > > Andreas. > SLB miss with MSR[RI]=0 on lbz r0,THREAD+THREAD_LOAD_FP(r7) Caused by bc4f65e4cf9d6cc43e0e9ba0b8648cf9201cd55f Hmm, I'll see if something can be done, but that MSR_RI stuff in syscall exit makes things fairly difficult (and will reduce performance improvement of this patch anyway). I'm trying to work to a point where we have a soft-RI bit for these kinds of uses that would avoid all this complexity. Until then it may be best to just revert this patch. Thanks for the report