[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Machine check exception in kmap_coherent()

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Machine check exception in kmap_coherent()
From: Kevin Cernekee <>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 11:28:05 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sozatdNewOWwECRibP9qaU47jH3DVLRnapILv5bPyv4=; b=JMMUxiduwuyIP/xXZWqjj36JXj5j9u4XcFTFxRlFeiqVibjDmOzL+j7vYl8t6Kxtvk KQwvmiBYtoFLmWit32XBQemKd+Te78IIBxCnQaStZlJscZspk1vsKdoHffhptwV02RD3 zpAQBLrJSTAuif6z70p7A8idPcI/40NmRA++0=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=vjXXJMpY7DYcGb4oowmgSY6+bKBfMm2b8oXi8w/QWS+EK4a/8Re99/C5Xy/JC0214r q1P3jjxPCvNn16PjDFROluRT0ETnqthRKEDsm0nObSDRhz0RiFZ6xT//lGyPxZr9fXMb kO0W7kX+KZXCACC5dMq1zg6mi0iaM3ZCYTqo0=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <197625223d8cb6ec3fc3e7da4501dd65@localhost> <>
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Baechle<> wrote:
> Too complicated.  The fault is happening because the non-SMTC code is trying
> to be terribly clever and pre-loading the TLB with a new wired entry.  On
> SMTC where multiple processors are sharing a single TLB are more careful
> approach is needed so the code does a TLB probe and carefully and re-uses
> an existing entry, if any.  Which happens to be just what we need.
> So how about below - only compile tested - patch?

That is an interesting idea.  However, I am not sure we want the IPI
ISR to overwrite copy_user_highpage()'s TLB entry.  That means that
when the interrupt returns, our coherent mapping will likely point to
a different page.  It will avoid the machine check exception, but it
will potentially cause silent, intermittent data corruption instead.

Taking another cue from the SMTC implementation, though - my v2 patch
adds an extra set of fixmap addresses for the in_interrupt() case,
avoiding the VA conflict entirely.  What do you think?

I tested this scheme on non-SMTC.  I suspect that the same change is
required for MT + MP cores like the 1004K, but probably not MT only
cores like 34K which don't use cacheop IPIs.

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