On 07/18/2011 03:36 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 15:26 +0800, Shan Hai wrote:
>> I am sorry I hadn't tried your newer patch, I tried it but it still
>> could not work in my test environment, I will dig into and tell you
>> why that failed later.
> Ok, please let me know what you find !
>
>> Yep, I know holding lots of ifdef's everywhere is not so good,
>> but if we have some other way(I don't know how till now) to
>> figure out the arch has the need to fixup up the write permission
>> we could eradicate the ugly ifdef's here.
>>
>> I think the handle_mm_fault could do all dirty/young tracking,
>> because the purpose of making follow_page return NULL to
>> its caller is that want to the handle_mm_fault to be called
>> on write permission protection fault.
> I see your point. Rather than factoring the fixup code out, we could
> force gup to call handle_mm_fault()... that makes sense.
>
> However, I don't think we should special case archs. There's plenty of
> cases where we don't care about this fixup even on archs that do SW
> tracking of dirty and young. For example when gup is using for
> subsequent DMA.
>
> Only the (rare ?) cases where it's used as a mean to fixup a failing
> "atomic" user access are relevant.
>
> So I believe we should still pass an explicit flag to __get_user_pages()
> as I propose to activate that behaviour.
>
> At this point, since we have isolated the special case callers, I think
> we are pretty much in a situation where there's no point trying to
> optimize the x86 case more, it's a fairly slow path anyway, and so no
> ifdef should be needed (and x86 already #define out the TLB flush for
> spurious faults in handle_pte_fault today).
>
> We don't even need to change follow_page()... we just don't call it the
> first time around.
>
> I'll cook up another patch later but first we need to find out why the
> one you have doesn't work. There might be another problem lurking (or I
> just made a stupid mistake).
>
> BTW. Can you give me some details about how you reproduce the problem ?
> I should setup something on a booke machine here to verify things.
>

Please get the test case code from the thread
"[PATCH 0/1] Fixup write permission of TLB on powerpc e500 core"'s
attachment, simply compile it and do the following,
- run the test case on the board
- run 'top' on the other terminal, you should observe almost
     100% CPU system usage

I also attached the kernel config file.

Best regards
Shan Hai


> Cheers,
> Ben.
>