linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RAMDISK problem on 79s334A board.

To: "Tommy S. Christensen" <tch@avanticore.com>
Subject: Re: RAMDISK problem on 79s334A board.
From: Venkata Rajesh Bikkina <rajeshbv@intotoinc.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:52:57 +0530 (IST)
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <3CE37364.945C40A7@avanticore.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Hi Tommy,

I am using 2.4.3 code and in that linux/mm/vmallo.c contains the following
code which is slightly different from the patch you gave.

        } while (address && (address < end));
        unlock_kernel();
        flush_tlb_all();
        return ret;

Can you please suggest how to modify this.

Regards,
--Rajesh

On Thu, 16 May 2002, Tommy S. Christensen wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > But the same module is working fine and kernel is also fine if i use NFS
> > > and insert the module.
> > > Any further info ?
> > 
> > Not really. The fact it works with NFS and not ramdisk may simply be that
> > in one case it corrupts memory that is used, and the other it corrupts
> > memory that isnt
> 
> Using a ramdisk increases the pressure on memory. So the difference could
> be that one case hits the cache aliasing problem, the other doesn't.
> 
> Try this patch and see if it helps.
> 
>  -Tommy
> 
> 
> 
> Index: mm/vmalloc.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/linux/mm/vmalloc.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.28
> retrieving revision 1.28.2.1
> diff -u -r1.28 -r1.28.2.1
> --- mm/vmalloc.c        2001/10/19 01:25:06     1.28
> +++ mm/vmalloc.c        2001/12/28 21:06:01     1.28.2.1
> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@
>                 ret = 0;
>         } while (address && (address < end));
>         spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
> +       flush_cache_all();
>         return ret;
>  }
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>