Ben,
You are right. After I corrected copy_page and __copy_tofrom_user
functions Linux booted normally. Thanks a lot for the suggestions.
Thanks,
Marri
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [mailto:benh@kernel.crashing.org]=20
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:56 PM
To: Tirumala Reddy Marri
Cc: Olof Johansson; <redacted>
Subject: RE: Disabling L1 D-cache and side effects
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 15:26 -0700, Tirumala Reddy Marri wrote:
Ben,
I got to bring up Linux on one of the 440 processors with out L1=20
dcache to do some bench marking and compare with L1 d-cache enabled.
=20
I am avoiding any references to dcbz ,dcbt and dcbst . Also the
TLB's
are created with cache inhibited. I looked at lwarx/stwcx description,
there seem to be no dependency on L1 cache.
Ok. Well, they are generally implemented at the L2 level but maybe not
on 440, architecturally, they must be used on cacheable memory but it's
possible that 440 being not SMP coherent, the actual implementation of
those is too dumb to care.
I don't see any critical exceptions or traps. All I see is /init/bin=20
failing to execute because data is corrupted.
Have you properly replaced dcbz with multiple stores ? I did some bring
up work internally on some stuff where dcbz wasn't quite there yet and
one pitfall to be careful is that if you force-enable the alternate
CONFIG_8xx implementation in the various copy & memset routines in
arch/powerpc/lib, you also need to fix those implementations to copy or
clear 32 bytes instead of just 16, as 8xx has 16 byte cache lines.
Typically failing to do so causes things like memset to fail to properly
clear things such as page tables and thus random crap occurs.
Cheers,
Ben.
Thanks,
Marri
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [mailto:benh@kernel.crashing.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:31 PM
To: Tirumala Reddy Marri
Cc: Olof Johansson; <redacted>
Subject: RE: Disabling L1 D-cache and side effects
=20
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:57 -0700, Tirumala Reddy Marri wrote:
quoted
Ben,
Thanks for the response. I am wondering how user space would get=20
affected by absence of L1 Dcache.
=20
You didn't answer my question :-)
=20
Well, as I said, things like lwarx/stwcx not working, dcbz taking=20
alignment exceptions, etc...
=20
Ben.
=20
quoted
Thanks,
Marri
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [mailto:benh@kernel.crashing.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:16 AM
To: Tirumala Reddy Marri
Cc: Olof Johansson; <redacted>
Subject: RE: Disabling L1 D-cache and side effects
=20
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 14:38 -0700, Tirumala Reddy Marri wrote:
quoted
Could you please point me to the which does the Critical error=20
(Machine
Check) recovery. BTW I am successful booting the Linux until=20
rootfs is
=20
quoted
being mounted. It fails to mount the Linux saying that blocks are=20
corrupted in file system. I had to modify lots of initial bring up
quoted
quoted
code to disable D-cache and make sure all TLB's are cache
inhibited.
quoted
quoted
Ando also made sure none of the misc_32.S , entry_32.S and head.S=20
makes any references to d-cache.
=20
Why the heck are you doing that btw ? AFAIK, as Olof says, things=20
like
=20
quoted
atomic operations will not work, dcbz neither etc... it's likely=20
that even if you manage to plaster around all of this in the kernel,
quoted
whatever userspace code you'll try to run in userspace will blow up
too...
quoted
=20
Cheers,
Ben.