Re: [PATCH 3/4] sparc64: convert spinlock_t to raw_spinlock_t in mmu_context_t
From: Kirill Tkhai <hidden>
Date: 2014-02-19 08:09:15
Also in:
sparclinux
19.02.2014, 07:54, "Allen Pais" [off-list ref]:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Kirill,quoted
12.02.2014, 16:15, "Allen Pais" [off-list ref]:quoted
On Wednesday 12 February 2014 05:13 PM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:quoted
12.02.2014, 15:29, "Allen Pais" [off-list ref]:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
[ 1487.027884] I7: <rt_mutex_setprio+0x3c/0x2c0> [ 1487.027885] Call Trace: [ 1487.027887] [00000000004967dc] rt_mutex_setprio+0x3c/0x2c0 [ 1487.027892] [00000000004afe20] task_blocks_on_rt_mutex+0x180/0x200 [ 1487.027895] [0000000000819114] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x94/0x300 [ 1487.027897] [0000000000817ebc] __schedule+0x39c/0x53c [ 1487.027899] [00000000008185fc] schedule+0x1c/0xc0 [ 1487.027908] [000000000048fff4] smpboot_thread_fn+0x154/0x2e0 [ 1487.027913] [000000000048753c] kthread+0x7c/0xa0 [ 1487.027920] [00000000004060c4] ret_from_syscall+0x1c/0x2c [ 1487.027922] [0000000000000000] (null)I am not convinced that I've covered all tlb/smp code. Guess I'll need to dig more.++all above. May we have to add one more crutch... Put preempt_disable() at begining of __set_pte_at() and enable at end...I realized locking in tsb is very tricky. My attempts to try and get hackbench run without causing a stall failed. So here's what I tried to fix it, am not sure if it's an appropriate fix, I would love to get comments. I have tested this fix for over 24 hours with hackbench and dd, the system did not stall :)diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c b/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c index 9eb10b4..24dcd29 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/tsb.c@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/preempt.h> #include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/locallock.h> #include <asm/page.h> #include <asm/pgtable.h> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>@@ -14,6 +15,7 @@#include <asm/oplib.h> extern struct tsb swapper_tsb[KERNEL_TSB_NENTRIES]; +static DEFINE_LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK(tsb_lock); static inline unsigned long tsb_hash(unsigned long vaddr, unsigned long hash_sh {@@ -71,9 +73,9 @@ static void __flush_tsb_one(struct tlb_batch *tb, unsigned lonvoid flush_tsb_user(struct tlb_batch *tb) { struct mm_struct *mm = tb->mm; - unsigned long nentries, base, flags; + unsigned long nentries, base; - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mm->context.lock, flags); + local_lock(tsb_lock); base = (unsigned long) mm->context.tsb_block[MM_TSB_BASE].tsb; nentries = mm->context.tsb_block[MM_TSB_BASE].tsb_nentries;@@ -90,7 +92,7 @@ void flush_tsb_user(struct tlb_batch *tb)__flush_tsb_one(tb, HPAGE_SHIFT, base, nentries); } #endif - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mm->context.lock, flags); + local_unlock(tsb_lock);
It seems to be not good for me. Tsb setup is in tsb_grow() and it must be synchronized with flushing. Flushing is also being made in flush_tsb_user_page().. Which last stack stack has you received with tb->active, permanently set to zero?
} Thanks, - Allen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html