I have just tried your test on a 4Kc and I see no problems.
However I'm running on our internal kernel sources, and as Kevin mention we have
changed a fixed a few things in this area.
As Kevin also mention it sure look more like a I-cache invalidation problem,
rather than a D-cache flush problem, as the 4Kc has a write-through cache.
One think you could try, is our latest kernel release. You can find it here:
"Kevin D. Kissell" wrote:
> > I attached the test case. Untar it. Type 'make' and run 'a.out'.
> > If the test fails you will see a print-out. Otherwise you see nothing.
> > It does not always fail. But if it fails, it is usually pretty consistent.
> > Try a few times. Moving source tree to a different directory may cause
> > the symptom appear or disappear.
> > I spent quite some time to trace this problem, and came to suspect
> > there might be a hardware problem.
> > The problem involves emulating a "lw" instruction in cp1 branch delay
> > slot, which needs to set up trampoline in user stack. The net effect
> > looks as if the icache line or dcache line is not flushed properly.
> > Using gdb/kgdb, printf or printk in any useful places would hide the bug.
> > I did find a smaller part of the problem. flush_cache_sigtramp for
> > MIPS32 (4Kc) calls protected_writeback_dcache_line in mips32_cache.h.
> > It uses Hit_Writeback_D, and the 4Kc mannual says it is not implemented
> > and executed as no-op (*ick*).
> Which version of the 4Kc manual are you looking at? I'm looking
> at a very recent version of the 4Kc Software User's Manual
> (version 1.17, dated September 25, 2002), and it only shows
> Hit_Writeback_D to be invalid for *secondary and teritary*
> caches, which makes sense, since the 4KSc doesn't have any.
> > Even after fixing this, I still see the problem happening.
> That's not too surprising. The 4Kc D-cache is write-through,
> so if you're really seeing a problem with trampolimes, it is almost
> certain to be a problem with the Icache invalidation, not the
> Dcache flush.
> > If you replace flush_cache_sigtramp() with flush_cache_all(), symptom
> > would disppear.
> Which again would make sense if there's a problem on
> the icache side of the flush. Oddly enough, we've seen
> some glitches on other CPUs with other kernels that
> might have been explicable by failures of protected_flush_icache_line(),
> but we never found a problem with it, and a higher-level
> memory management patch made the problem go away.
> Makes me wonder if we shouldn't look at it again, more
> closely. Is there any possibility that the logic for restarting
> a protected kernel access following a page fault will somehow
> screw up on CACHE instructions, as opposed to the loads
> and stores for which the code was originally written?
> > Several of my tests seem to suggest it is the icache that did not
> > get flushed (or updated) properly.
> > Not re-producible on other MIPS boards. At least so far.
> > Does anybody with more knowledge about 4Kc have any clues here?
> > Thanks.
> > Jun
_ _ ____ ___ Carsten Langgaard Mailto:email@example.com
|\ /|||___)(___ MIPS Denmark Direct: +45 4486 5527
| \/ ||| ____) Lautrupvang 4B Switch: +45 4486 5555
TECHNOLOGIES 2750 Ballerup Fax...: +45 4486 5556