linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Calculate proper ebase value for 64-bit kernels

To: wuzhangjin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Calculate proper ebase value for 64-bit kernels
From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:19:04 -0700
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <1271232185.25872.142.camel@falcon>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1270585790-12730-1-git-send-email-ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> <1271135034.25797.41.camel@falcon> <20100413073435.GA6371@alpha.franken.de> <20100413171610.GA16578@linux-mips.org> <1271232185.25872.142.camel@falcon>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4
On 04/14/2010 01:03 AM, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 18:16 +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:34:38AM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 01:03:54PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
This patch have broken the support to the MIPS variants whose
cpu_has_mips_r2 is 0 for the CAC_BASE and CKSEG0 is completely different
in these MIPSs.

I've checked R4k and R10k manulas and the exception base is at CKSEG0, so
about CPU we are talking ? And wouldn't it make for senso to have
an extra define for the exception base then ?

C0_ebase's design was a short-sigthed only considering 32-bit processors.
So the exception base is in CKSEG0 on every 64-bit processor, be it R2 or
older.  So yes, there is a bug as I've verified by testing but the patch
is unfortunately incorrect.

Just debugged it via PMON:

loaded the kernel and used "g console=tty root=/dev/hda5 init=/bin/bash"
to start the kernel, there was a bad address exception.

the kernel stopped at:

Exception Cause=address error on store, SR=0x24000002, PC=0x8020526c
...
BADVADDR=0x97ffffff80000100, ENTHI=0xfffffe000
...
...
__copy_user+0x48  ... sd  t0,0(a0)  # addr = 0x80000100 rt=0x401a8000

Seems the a0 argument of __copy_user is _bad_.

And tried to set a break pointer to trap_init() and per_cpu_trap_init(),
and then cpu_cache_init() ... r4k_cache_init() and at last found that
set_uncached_handler(0x100,&except_vec2_generic, 0x80);

/*
  * Install uncached CPU exception handler.
  * This is suitable only for the cache error exception which is the only
  * exception handler that is being run uncached.
  */
void __cpuinit set_uncached_handler(unsigned long offset, void *addr,
         unsigned long size)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_32BIT
         unsigned long uncached_ebase = KSEG1ADDR(ebase);
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
         unsigned long uncached_ebase = TO_UNCAC(ebase);
#endif

         if (!addr)
                 panic(panic_null_cerr);

         memcpy((void *)(uncached_ebase + offset), addr, size);
}

memcpy() called __copy_user... and the a0 is uncached_ebase + offset,
and uncached_ebase is defined by TO_UNCAC:

#define TO_UNCAC(x)             (UNCAC_BASE | ((x)&  TO_PHYS_MASK))
#define TO_PHYS_MASK _CONST64_(0x07ffffffffffffff)
#define UNCAC_BASE _AC(0x9000000000000000, UL)

If using CKSEG0 as the ebase, CKSEG0 is defined as 0xffffffff80000000,
then we get the address: 0x97ffffff80000100, is this address ok?

I don't think so. We should fix TO_UNCAC() so that it works with CKSEG0 addresses. It should be at physical address 0. So TO_UNCAC(0xffffffff80000000), should yield 0x9000000000000000


#define TO_UNCAC(x) ({ \
        u64 a = (u64)(x);     \
        if (a & 0xffffffffc000000 == 0xffffffff80000000) \
                a = UNCAC_BASE | (a & 0x30000000); \
        else \
                a = UNCAC_BASE | (a & TO_PHYS_MASK) \
        a; \
})

David Daney



And before, we have used the CAC_BASE as the ebase, the CAC_BASE is
defined as following:

#ifndef CAC_BASE
#ifdef CONFIG_DMA_NONCOHERENT
#define CAC_BASE                _AC(0x9800000000000000, UL)
#else
#define CAC_BASE                _AC(0xa800000000000000, UL)
#endif
#endif

So, before, the uncached_base is 0x9000000000000000.

Regards,
        Wu Zhangjin




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