From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from anchor-fallback-96.mail.demon.net (anchor-fallback-96.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.83]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 533DDDDF32 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 08:44:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.91]:4024 "EHLO anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net") by anchor-fallback-96.mail.demon.net with ESMTP id S460067AbXD3VhG (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:37:06 +0000 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:36:27 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Fortescue To: Andrea Arcangeli , wli@holomorphy.com, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: vm changes from linux-2.6.14 to linux-2.6.15 In-Reply-To: <1177852457.4390.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <1177852457.4390.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi all, I have tracked down a failure to successfully load/run the init task on my Sparcstation 1 clone (SS1) and Sparcstation 2 (SS2), sparc32 sun4c systems, to a patch: commit 1a44e149084d772a1bcf4cdbdde8a013a8a1cfde. [PATCH] .text page fault SMP scalability optimization Removing this patch fixes the issue and allows me to use kernels later than v2.5.14. (tested using linux-2.6.20.9). Given the comment provided by the git bisect, backing out this patch will probably have undesirable conseqnences for other platforms (especially powerpc64) so, if an architecture independent solution is not available, some/all of the code in handle_pte_fault() in mm/memory.c will need be to made architecture dependent. I am not sufficiently familear with the how the SS1/SS2 mmu works and how the linux memory management system works to understand why this patch prevents my sun4c SS1/SS2 systems from working. Advice and help on the approch to take and any code changes regarding this issue would be most welcome. Regards Mark Fortescue. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:02 +0100, Mark Fortescue wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Does any one have or know of a good reference that would help me in >> identifing the cause of a CPU soft lockup that apears to be related to >> changes in the vertual memory handling between these two versions of the >> kernel? > > Have you tried git bisecting between the two kernels to find the > specific patch that breaks? > > ~spot > >