OK, here is the next try att fixing the MPC8xx MMU
problems. Pleas add one(or two) patches at a time and
test.
Expect some trivial merge conflicts in 8xx header file, sorry
about that.
Joakim Tjernlund (6):
8xx: DTLB Error must check for more errors.
8xx: get rid of _PAGE_HWWRITE dependency in MMU.
8xx: invalidate non present TLBs
8xx: Tag DAR with 0x00f0 to catch buggy instructions.
8xx: Fixup DAR from buggy dcbX instructions.
8xx: start using dcbX instructions in various copy routines
arch/powerpc/include/asm/pte-8xx.h | 13 +-
arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 243 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S | 18 ---
arch/powerpc/lib/copy_32.S | 24 ----
arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 8 +-
5 files changed, 209 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs in
it DTLB asm handler.
These must be invalidated separaly as linux mm don't.
---
arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 8 +++++++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
@@ -243,6 +243,12 @@ good_area:gotobad_area;#endif /* CONFIG_6xx */#if defined(CONFIG_8xx)+/* 8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs.+*Thesemustbeinvalidatedseparatelyaslinuxmmdon't.+*/+if(error_code&0x40000000)/* no translation? */+_tlbil_va(address);+/* The MPC8xx seems to always set 0x80000000, which is*"undefined".Ofthosethatcanbeset,thisistheonly*onewhichseemsbad.
DataTLBError currently does:
if ((err & 0x02000000) == 0)
DSI();
This won't handle a store with no valid translation.
Change this to
if ((err & 0x48000000) != 0)
DSI();
that is, branch to DSI if either !permission or
!translation.
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Update the TLB asm to make proper use of _PAGE_DIRY and _PAGE_ACCESSED.
Pros:
- I/D TLB Miss never needs to write to the linux pte.
- _PAGE_ACCESSED is only set on TLB Error fixing accounting
- _PAGE_DIRTY is mapped to 0x100, the changed bit, and is set directly
when a page has been made dirty.
- Proper RO/RW mapping of user space.
- Free up 2 SW TLB bits in the linux pte(add back _PAGE_WRITETHRU ?)
Cons:
- 1 more instructions in I/D TLB Miss, but the since the linux pte is
not written anymore, it should still be a big win.
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/pte-8xx.h | 13 +++---
arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 82 ++++++++++++++++--------------------
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
@@ -32,22 +32,21 @@#define _PAGE_FILE 0x0002 /* when !present: nonlinear file mapping */#define _PAGE_NO_CACHE 0x0002 /* I: cache inhibit */#define _PAGE_SHARED 0x0004 /* No ASID (context) compare */+#define _PAGE_DIRTY 0x0100 /* C: page changed */-/* These five software bits must be masked out when the entry is loaded-*intotheTLB.+/* These 3 software bits must be masked out when the entry is loaded+*intotheTLB,2SWbitsleft.*/#define _PAGE_EXEC 0x0008 /* software: i-cache coherency required */#define _PAGE_GUARDED 0x0010 /* software: guarded access */-#define _PAGE_DIRTY 0x0020 /* software: page changed */-#define _PAGE_RW 0x0040 /* software: user write access allowed */-#define _PAGE_ACCESSED 0x0080 /* software: page referenced */+#define _PAGE_ACCESSED 0x0020 /* software: page referenced *//* Setting any bits in the nibble with the follow two controls will*requireaTLBexceptionhandlerchange.Itisassumedunusedbits*arealwayszero.*/-#define _PAGE_HWWRITE 0x0100 /* h/w write enable: never set in Linux PTE */-#define _PAGE_USER 0x0800 /* One of the PP bits, the other is USER&~RW */+#define _PAGE_RW 0x0400 /* lsb PP bits, inverted in HW */+#define _PAGE_USER 0x0800 /* msb PP bits */#define _PMD_PRESENT 0x0001#define _PMD_BAD 0x0ff0
@@ -333,26 +333,18 @@ InstructionTLBMiss:mfsprr11,SPRN_MD_TWC/*....andgetthepteaddress*/lwzr10,0(r11)/*Getthepte*/-#ifdef CONFIG_SWAP-/*donotsetthe_PAGE_ACCESSEDbitofanon-presentpage*/-andi.r11,r10,_PAGE_PRESENT-beq4f-orir10,r10,_PAGE_ACCESSED-mfsprr11,SPRN_MD_TWC/*getthepteaddressagain*/-stwr10,0(r11)-4:-#else-orir10,r10,_PAGE_ACCESSED-stwr10,0(r11)-#endif+andi.r11,r10,_PAGE_USER|_PAGE_ACCESSED+cmpwicr0,r11,_PAGE_USER|_PAGE_ACCESSED+bne-cr0,2f+/*Dont' bother with PP lsb, bit 21 for now *//*TheLinuxPTEwon't go exactly into the MMU TLB.-*Softwareindicatorbits21,22and28mustbeclear.+*Softwareindicatorbits22and28mustbeclear.*Softwareindicatorbits24,25,26,and27mustbe*set.AllotherLinuxPTEbitscontrolthebehavior*oftheMMU.*/-2:lir11,0x00f0+lir11,0x00f0rlwimir10,r11,0,24,28/*Set24-27,clear28*/DO_8xx_CPU6(0x2d80,r3)mtsprSPRN_MI_RPN,r10/*UpdateTLBentry*/
@@ -409,21 +414,14 @@ DataStoreTLBMiss:DO_8xx_CPU6(0x3b80,r3)mtsprSPRN_MD_TWC,r11-#ifdef CONFIG_SWAP-/*donotsetthe_PAGE_ACCESSEDbitofanon-presentpage*/-andi.r11,r10,_PAGE_PRESENT-beq4f-orir10,r10,_PAGE_ACCESSED-4:-/*andupdatepteintable*/-#else-orir10,r10,_PAGE_ACCESSED-#endif-mfsprr11,SPRN_MD_TWC/*getthepteaddressagain*/-stwr10,0(r11)+andi.r11,r10,_PAGE_ACCESSED+bne+cr0,5f/*branchifaccessallowed*/+rlwinmr10,r10,0,21,19/*Clear_PAGE_USER*/+orir10,r10,_PAGE_RW/*SetRWbitforxorbelowtoclearit*/+5:xorir10,r10,_PAGE_RW/*invertRWbit*//*TheLinuxPTEwon't go exactly into the MMU TLB.-*Softwareindicatorbits21,22and28mustbeclear.+*Softwareindicatorbits22and28mustbeclear.*Softwareindicatorbits24,25,26,and27mustbe*set.AllotherLinuxPTEbitscontrolthebehavior*oftheMMU.
@@ -522,26 +520,20 @@ DataTLBError:mfsprr11,SPRN_MD_TWC/*....andgetthepteaddress*/lwzr10,0(r11)/*Getthepte*/-andi.r11,r10,_PAGE_RW/*Isitwriteable?*/-beq2f/*Bailoutifnot*/--/*Update'changed',amongothers.-*/-#ifdef CONFIG_SWAP+mfsprr11,DSISR+andis.r11,r11,0x0200/*store*/+beq5f+andi.r11,r10,_PAGE_RW/*writeable?*/+beq2f/*nope*/orir10,r10,_PAGE_DIRTY|_PAGE_HWWRITE-/*donotsetthe_PAGE_ACCESSEDbitofanon-presentpage*/-andi.r11,r10,_PAGE_PRESENT-beq4f-orir10,r10,_PAGE_ACCESSED-4:-#else-orir10,r10,_PAGE_DIRTY|_PAGE_ACCESSED|_PAGE_HWWRITE-#endif-mfsprr11,SPRN_MD_TWC/*Getpteaddressagain*/+5:orir10,r10,_PAGE_ACCESSED+mfsprr11,MD_TWC/*Getpteaddressagain*/stwr10,0(r11)/*andupdatepteintable*/+xorir10,r10,_PAGE_RW/*RWbitisinverted*/+/*TheLinuxPTEwon't go exactly into the MMU TLB.-*Softwareindicatorbits21,22and28mustbeclear.+*Softwareindicatorbits22and28mustbeclear.*Softwareindicatorbits24,25,26,and27mustbe*set.AllotherLinuxPTEbitscontrolthebehavior*oftheMMU.
This is an assembler version to fixup DAR not being set
by dcbX, icbi instructions. There are two versions, one
uses selfmodifing code(default), the other uses
jump table but is much bigger.
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 145 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
@@ -593,6 +594,149 @@ DataTLBError:.=0x2000+/*ThisistheproceduretocalculatethedataEAforbuggydcbx,dcbiinstructions+*bydecodingtheregistersusedbythedcbxinstructionandaddingthem.+*DARissettothecalculatedaddressandr10alsoholdstheEAonexit.+*/+//#define NO_SELF_MODIFYING_CODE /* define if you don't want to use self modifying code */+nop/*Afewnopstomakethemodified_instr:spacebelowcachelinealigned*/+nop+139:/*fetchinstructionfromuserspacememory*/+DO_8xx_CPU6(0x3780,r3)+mtsprSPRN_MD_EPN,r10+mfsprr11,SPRN_M_TWB/*Getlevel1tableentryaddress*/+lwzr11,0(r11)/*Getthelevel1entry*/+tophys (r11,r11)+DO_8xx_CPU6(0x3b80,r3)+mtsprSPRN_MD_TWC,r11/*Loadptetablebaseaddress*/+mfsprr11,SPRN_MD_TWC/*....andgetthepteaddress*/+lwzr11,0(r11)/*Getthepte*/+/*concatphysicalpageaddress(r11)andpageoffset(r10)*/+rlwimir11,r10,0,20,31+b140f+FixDAR:/*Entrypointfordcbxworkaround.*/+/*fetchinstructionfrommemory.*/+mfsprr10,SPRN_SRR0+andis.r11,r10,0x8000+tophys (r11,r10)+beq-139b/*Branchifuserspaceaddress*/+140:lwzr11,0(r11)+#ifdef CONFIG_8xx_CPU6+lwzr3,8(r0)/*restorer3frommemory*/+#endif+#ifndef NO_SELF_MODIFYING_CODE+andis.r10,r11,0x1f/*testifregRAisr0*/+lir10,modified_instr@l+dcbtstr0,r10/*touchforstore*/+rlwinmr11,r11,0,0,20/*Zerolower10bits*/+orisr11,r11,640/*Transforminstr.toa"add r10,RA,RB"*/+orir11,r11,532+stwr11,0(r10)/*storeadd/andinstruction*/+dcbf0,r10/*flushnewinstr.tomemory.*/+icbi0,r10/*invalidateinstr.cacheline*/+lwzr11,4(r0)/*restorer11frommemory*/+mfsprr10,SPRN_M_TW/*restorer10fromM_TW*/+isync/*Waituntilnewinstrisloadedfrommemory*/+modified_instr:+.space4/*thisiswheretheadd/andinstr.isstored*/+bne+143f+subfr10,r0,r10/*r10=r10-r0,onlyifregRAisr0*/+143:mtdarr10/*storefaultingEAinDAR*/+bDARFix/*GobacktonormalTLBhandling*/+#else+mfctrr10+mtdarr10/*savectrreginDAR*/+rlwinmr10,r11,24,24,28/*offsetintojumptableforregRB*/+addir10,r10,150f@l/*addstartoftable*/+mtctrr10/*loadctrwithjumpaddress*/+xorr10,r10,r10/*sumstartsatzero*/+bctr/*jumpintotable*/+150:+addr10,r10,r0+b151f+addr10,r10,r1+b151f+addr10,r10,r2+b151f+addr10,r10,r3+b151f+addr10,r10,r4+b151f+addr10,r10,r5+b151f+addr10,r10,r6+b151f+addr10,r10,r7+b151f+addr10,r10,r8+b151f+addr10,r10,r9+b151f+addr10,r10,r10+b151f+addr10,r10,r11+b151f+addr10,r10,r12+b151f+addr10,r10,r13+b151f+addr10,r10,r14+b151f+addr10,r10,r15+b151f+addr10,r10,r16+b151f+addr10,r10,r17+b151f+addr10,r10,r18+b151f+addr10,r10,r19+b151f+mtctrr11/*r10needsspecialhandling*/+b154f+mtctrr11/*r11needsspecialhandling*/+b153f+addr10,r10,r22+b151f+addr10,r10,r23+b151f+addr10,r10,r24+b151f+addr10,r10,r25+b151f+addr10,r10,r25+b151f+addr10,r10,r27+b151f+addr10,r10,r28+b151f+addr10,r10,r29+b151f+addr10,r10,r30+b151f+addr10,r10,r31+151:+rlwinm.r11,r11,19,24,28/*offsetintojumptableforregRA*/+beq152f/*ifregRAiszero,don't add it */ +addir11,r11,150b@l/*addstartoftable*/+mtctrr11/*loadctrwithjumpaddress*/+rlwinmr11,r11,0,16,10/*makesurewedon't execute this more than once */+bctr/*jumpintotable*/+152:+mfdarr11+mtctrr11/*restorectrregfromDAR*/+mtdarr10/*savefaultEAtoDAR*/+bDARFix/*GobacktonormalTLBhandling*/++/*specialhandlingforr10,r11sincethesearemodifiedalready*/+153:lwzr11,4(r0)/*loadr11frommemory*/+b155f+154:mfsprr11,SPRN_M_TW/*loadr10fromM_TW*/+155:addr10,r10,r11/*addit*/+mfctrr11/*restorer11*/+b151b+#endif+.globlgiveup_fpugiveup_fpu:blr
Now that 8xx can fixup dcbX instructions, start using them
where possible like every other PowerPc arch do.
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S | 18 ------------------
arch/powerpc/lib/copy_32.S | 24 ------------------------
2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
@@ -528,15 +520,6 @@ _GLOBAL(copy_page)addir3,r3,-4addir4,r4,-4-#ifdef CONFIG_8xx-/*don't use prefetch on 8xx */-lir0,4096/L1_CACHE_BYTES-mtctrr0-1:COPY_16_BYTES-bdnz1b-blr--#else /* not 8xx, we can prefetch */lir5,4#if MAX_COPY_PREFETCH > 1
@@ -356,14 +341,6 @@ _GLOBAL(__copy_tofrom_user)lir11,4beq63f-#ifdef CONFIG_8xx-/*Don't use prefetch on 8xx */-mtctrr0-lir0,0-53:COPY_16_BYTES_WITHEX(0)-bdnz53b--#else /* not CONFIG_8xx *//*Herewedecidehowfaraheadtoprefetchthesource*/lir3,4cmpwir0,1
dcbz, dcbf, dcbi, dcbst and icbi do not set DAR when they
cause a DTLB Error. Dectect this by tagging DAR with 0x00f0
at every exception exit that modifies DAR.
Test for DAR=0x00f0 in DataTLBError and bail
to handle_page_fault().
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
+ andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_ACCESSED
+ bne+ cr0, 5f /* branch if access allowed */
+ rlwinm r10, r10, 0, 21, 19 /* Clear _PAGE_USER */
+ ori r10, r10, _PAGE_RW /* Set RW bit for xor below to clear it */
+5: xori r10, r10, _PAGE_RW /* invert RW bit */
Why are you clearing _PAGE_USER ? One needs to differenciate usr
from kernel pages or user will be access to write to kernel...
Why don't you do the trick I proposed in my email with loading a
constant that contains all the bit combinations and shifting it
by the amount defined by _PAGE_RW and _PAGE_USER used as a two
bits index ?
quoted hunk
/* The Linux PTE won't go exactly into the MMU TLB.
- * Software indicator bits 21, 22 and 28 must be clear.
+ * Software indicator bits 22 and 28 must be clear.
* Software indicator bits 24, 25, 26, and 27 must be
* set. All other Linux PTE bits control the behavior
* of the MMU.
@@ -472,8 +470,8 @@ DataTLBError: /* First, make sure this was a store operation. */ mfspr r10, SPRN_DSISR- andis. r11, r10, 0x4800 /* no translation, no permission. */- bne 2f /* branch if either is set */+ andis. r11, r10, 0x4000 /* no translation */+ bne 2f /* branch if set */ /* The EA of a data TLB miss is automatically stored in the MD_EPN * register. The EA of a data TLB error is automatically stored in
@@ -522,26 +520,20 @@ DataTLBError: mfspr r11, SPRN_MD_TWC /* ....and get the pte address */ lwz r10, 0(r11) /* Get the pte */- andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_RW /* Is it writeable? */- beq 2f /* Bail out if not */-- /* Update 'changed', among others.- */-#ifdef CONFIG_SWAP+ mfspr r11, DSISR+ andis. r11, r11, 0x0200 /* store */+ beq 5f+ andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_RW /* writeable? */+ beq 2f /* nope */ ori r10, r10, _PAGE_DIRTY|_PAGE_HWWRITE- /* do not set the _PAGE_ACCESSED bit of a non-present page */- andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_PRESENT- beq 4f- ori r10, r10, _PAGE_ACCESSED-4:-#else- ori r10, r10, _PAGE_DIRTY|_PAGE_ACCESSED|_PAGE_HWWRITE-#endif- mfspr r11, SPRN_MD_TWC /* Get pte address again */+5: ori r10, r10, _PAGE_ACCESSED+ mfspr r11, MD_TWC /* Get pte address again */ stw r10, 0(r11) /* and update pte in table */+ xori r10, r10, _PAGE_RW /* RW bit is inverted */+ /* The Linux PTE won't go exactly into the MMU TLB.- * Software indicator bits 21, 22 and 28 must be clear.+ * Software indicator bits 22 and 28 must be clear. * Software indicator bits 24, 25, 26, and 27 must be * set. All other Linux PTE bits control the behavior * of the MMU.
I still don't find how any of the above is useful... why not just go
straight to C code ?
Cheers,
Ben.
@@ -243,6 +243,12 @@ good_area:gotobad_area;#endif /* CONFIG_6xx */#if defined(CONFIG_8xx)+/* 8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs.+*Thesemustbeinvalidatedseparatelyaslinuxmmdon't.+*/+if(error_code&0x40000000)/* no translation? */+_tlbil_va(address);+/* The MPC8xx seems to always set 0x80000000, which is*"undefined".Ofthosethatcanbeset,thisistheonly*onewhichseemsbad.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-07 21:18:30
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:46 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
dcbz, dcbf, dcbi, dcbst and icbi do not set DAR when they
cause a DTLB Error. Dectect this by tagging DAR with 0x00f0
at every exception exit that modifies DAR.
Test for DAR=0x00f0 in DataTLBError and bail
to handle_page_fault().
+ andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_ACCESSED
+ bne+ cr0, 5f /* branch if access allowed */
+ rlwinm r10, r10, 0, 21, 19 /* Clear _PAGE_USER */
+ ori r10, r10, _PAGE_RW /* Set RW bit for xor below to clear it */
+5: xori r10, r10, _PAGE_RW /* invert RW bit */
Why are you clearing _PAGE_USER ? One needs to differenciate usr
from kernel pages or user will be access to write to kernel...
To force a TLB error so I can work out load or store. I just
came up with a better idea for that, need to test it though.
Why don't you do the trick I proposed in my email with loading a
constant that contains all the bit combinations and shifting it
by the amount defined by _PAGE_RW and _PAGE_USER used as a two
bits index ?
Lets start simple, shall we? :)
Anyhow, I looked some more at that and I don't the best thing is
to use shifts. All bits are correct if you invert RW and add an exception
for extended coding.
quoted
/* The Linux PTE won't go exactly into the MMU TLB.
- * Software indicator bits 21, 22 and 28 must be clear.
+ * Software indicator bits 22 and 28 must be clear.
* Software indicator bits 24, 25, 26, and 27 must be
* set. All other Linux PTE bits control the behavior
* of the MMU.
@@ -472,8 +470,8 @@ DataTLBError: /* First, make sure this was a store operation. */ mfspr r10, SPRN_DSISR- andis. r11, r10, 0x4800 /* no translation, no permission. */- bne 2f /* branch if either is set */+ andis. r11, r10, 0x4000 /* no translation */+ bne 2f /* branch if set */ /* The EA of a data TLB miss is automatically stored in the MD_EPN * register. The EA of a data TLB error is automatically stored in
@@ -522,26 +520,20 @@ DataTLBError: mfspr r11, SPRN_MD_TWC /* ....and get the pte address */ lwz r10, 0(r11) /* Get the pte */- andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_RW /* Is it writeable? */- beq 2f /* Bail out if not */-- /* Update 'changed', among others.- */-#ifdef CONFIG_SWAP+ mfspr r11, DSISR+ andis. r11, r11, 0x0200 /* store */+ beq 5f+ andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_RW /* writeable? */+ beq 2f /* nope */ ori r10, r10, _PAGE_DIRTY|_PAGE_HWWRITE- /* do not set the _PAGE_ACCESSED bit of a non-present page */- andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_PRESENT- beq 4f- ori r10, r10, _PAGE_ACCESSED-4:-#else- ori r10, r10, _PAGE_DIRTY|_PAGE_ACCESSED|_PAGE_HWWRITE-#endif- mfspr r11, SPRN_MD_TWC /* Get pte address again */+5: ori r10, r10, _PAGE_ACCESSED+ mfspr r11, MD_TWC /* Get pte address again */ stw r10, 0(r11) /* and update pte in table */+ xori r10, r10, _PAGE_RW /* RW bit is inverted */+ /* The Linux PTE won't go exactly into the MMU TLB.- * Software indicator bits 21, 22 and 28 must be clear.+ * Software indicator bits 22 and 28 must be clear. * Software indicator bits 24, 25, 26, and 27 must be * set. All other Linux PTE bits control the behavior * of the MMU.
I still don't find how any of the above is useful... why not just go
straight to C code ?
Because if you go to C with a protection fault, you are in trouble.
So deal with it here. Now, I got another idea too that will make this go away
if it work out
@@ -243,6 +243,12 @@ good_area:gotobad_area;#endif /* CONFIG_6xx */#if defined(CONFIG_8xx)+/* 8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs.+*Thesemustbeinvalidatedseparatelyaslinuxmmdon't.+*/+if(error_code&0x40000000)/* no translation? */+_tlbil_va(address);+/* The MPC8xx seems to always set 0x80000000, which is*"undefined".Ofthosethatcanbeset,thisistheonly*onewhichseemsbad.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 07/10/2009 23:18:21:
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:46 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
dcbz, dcbf, dcbi, dcbst and icbi do not set DAR when they
cause a DTLB Error. Dectect this by tagging DAR with 0x00f0
at every exception exit that modifies DAR.
Test for DAR=0x00f0 in DataTLBError and bail
to handle_page_fault().
Why not -1 ? :-)
Because 0x00f0 is already in use in the TLB fast path, saves one insn.
TLB Miss will set that bit unconditionally and that is
the same bit as protection error in TLB error.
And ? Big deal :-) IE. Once you get to InstructionAccess, it doesn't
matter if that bit is set, does it ?
Lets start simple, shall we? :)
Anyhow, I looked some more at that and I don't the best thing is
to use shifts. All bits are correct if you invert RW and add an exception
for extended coding.
Right, as long as you avoid doing a conditional branch :-)
Because if you go to C with a protection fault, you are in trouble.
Why ?
So deal with it here. Now, I got another idea too that will make this go away
if it work out
I don't understand your point about protection faults.
You should be able to go straight to C with -anything-, that's what I do
for all other platforms.
Ben.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-07 22:21:33
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:13 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 07/10/2009 23:18:21:
quoted
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:46 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
dcbz, dcbf, dcbi, dcbst and icbi do not set DAR when they
cause a DTLB Error. Dectect this by tagging DAR with 0x00f0
at every exception exit that modifies DAR.
Test for DAR=0x00f0 in DataTLBError and bail
to handle_page_fault().
Why not -1 ? :-)
Because 0x00f0 is already in use in the TLB fast path, saves one insn.
But will cause weird things if the user really uses 0xf0 (though granted
that's unlikely :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 08/10/2009 00:21:24:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:13 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 07/10/2009 23:18:21:
quoted
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:46 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
dcbz, dcbf, dcbi, dcbst and icbi do not set DAR when they
cause a DTLB Error. Dectect this by tagging DAR with 0x00f0
at every exception exit that modifies DAR.
Test for DAR=0x00f0 in DataTLBError and bail
to handle_page_fault().
Why not -1 ? :-)
Because 0x00f0 is already in use in the TLB fast path, saves one insn.
But will cause weird things if the user really uses 0xf0 (though granted
that's unlikely :-)
Yeah, you will most likely end up with a segv anyway.
TLB Miss will set that bit unconditionally and that is
the same bit as protection error in TLB error.
And ? Big deal :-) IE. Once you get to InstructionAccess, it doesn't
matter if that bit is set, does it ?
Yes it does. If one adds HWEXEC it will fail, right?
Also this count as a read and you could easily end up
in the protection case(in 2.4 you do)
quoted
Lets start simple, shall we? :)
Anyhow, I looked some more at that and I don't the best thing is
to use shifts. All bits are correct if you invert RW and add an exception
for extended coding.
Right, as long as you avoid doing a conditional branch :-)
hey, I think you have to show how then :) I am not
good at ppc shift, mask, rotate insn.
quoted
Because if you go to C with a protection fault, you are in trouble.
Why ?
In 2.4 you end up in read protection fault an get a SEGV back :)
quoted
So deal with it here. Now, I got another idea too that will make this go away
if it work out
I don't understand your point about protection faults.
You should be able to go straight to C with -anything-, that's what I do
for all other platforms.
Well, you don't force a tlb error like I do, however my new version
handles this better.
Now I only handle DIRTY and the rest in C. Figured it is
much faster and really simplie now, stay tuned.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-08 00:05:08
Yes it does. If one adds HWEXEC it will fail, right?
Why ? We can just filter out DSISR, we don't really care why it failed
as long as we know whether it was a store or not.
Also this count as a read and you could easily end up
in the protection case(in 2.4 you do)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the protection case" Again, the C code
shouldn't care.
hey, I think you have to show how then :) I am not
good at ppc shift, mask, rotate insn.
They are so fun ! :-0
quoted
quoted
Because if you go to C with a protection fault, you are in trouble.
Why ?
In 2.4 you end up in read protection fault an get a SEGV back :)
We probably should ignore the DSISR bits then. So it just goes to
generic C code which then fixes up ACCESSED etc... and returns.
Now I only handle DIRTY and the rest in C. Figured it is
much faster and really simplie now, stay tuned.
You should not even have to handle DIRTY at all in asm. At least in 2.6.
I can't vouch for what 2.4 generic code does... You should really port
your board over :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 08/10/2009 02:04:56:
quoted
Yes it does. If one adds HWEXEC it will fail, right?
Why ? We can just filter out DSISR, we don't really care why it failed
as long as we know whether it was a store or not.
quoted
Also this count as a read and you could easily end up
in the protection case(in 2.4 you do)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the protection case" Again, the C code
shouldn't care.
it does, and it should. How else should you know if you try
to read a NA space?
See:
/* Protection fault on exec go straight to failure on
* Hash based MMUs as they either don't support per-page
* execute permission, or if they do, it's handled already
* at the hash level. This test would probably have to
* be removed if we change the way this works to make hash
* processors use the same I/D cache coherency mechanism
* as embedded.
*/
if (error_code & DSISR_PROTFAULT)
goto bad_area;
...
/* a read */
} else {
/* protection fault */
if (error_code & 0x08000000)
goto bad_area;
quoted
hey, I think you have to show how then :) I am not
good at ppc shift, mask, rotate insn.
They are so fun ! :-0
Great that someone thinks so :)
quoted
quoted
quoted
Because if you go to C with a protection fault, you are in trouble.
Why ?
In 2.4 you end up in read protection fault an get a SEGV back :)
We probably should ignore the DSISR bits then. So it just goes to
generic C code which then fixes up ACCESSED etc... and returns.
Not really I think.
quoted
Now I only handle DIRTY and the rest in C. Figured it is
much faster and really simplie now, stay tuned.
You should not even have to handle DIRTY at all in asm. At least in 2.6.
I can't vouch for what 2.4 generic code does... You should really port
your board over :-)
2.4 and 2.6 have the same handling in asm.
hmm, maybe I should just call C, but 8xx isn't a speed monster so every
cycle counts :)
It works if I trap to C for DIRTY too.
Before thinking on porting my old board, I want 2.4 to enjoy
the new TLB code too :)
Jocke
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 07/10/2009 23:18:05:
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:46 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs in
it DTLB asm handler.
These must be invalidated separaly as linux mm don't.
not sure about the dsisr test here, what is the point ?
Without this patch I get about twice as many DTLB errors( on 2.4)
I have also noted that all my dcbst DTLB has the store bit set:
trap:300 address:10030b8c, dar:10030b8c,err:42000000 dcbst
Thare are comments in the kernel that dcbst wrongly
generates TLB Errors with store set on 8xx. Is this really so?
Should dcbst always trap as a load?
Jocke
@@ -243,6 +243,12 @@ good_area:gotobad_area;#endif /* CONFIG_6xx */#if defined(CONFIG_8xx)+/* 8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs.+*Thesemustbeinvalidatedseparatelyaslinuxmmdon't.+*/+if(error_code&0x40000000)/* no translation? */+_tlbil_va(address);+/* The MPC8xx seems to always set 0x80000000, which is*"undefined".Ofthosethatcanbeset,thisistheonly*onewhichseemsbad.
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2009-10-08 20:17:24
On Oct 8, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
hare are comments in the kernel that dcbst wrongly
generates TLB Errors with store set on 8xx. Is this really so?
Should dcbst always trap as a load?
There are many comments written about 8xx as various
behavior was discovered. Worse, some of these details
would be different among the different processor versions.
You need to be careful and test as many different part
versions as possible to ensure you have everything
covered..... then someone will find a part that doesn't
quite work, "fix" it, and break others :-)
In this particular case, the PEM does state dcbst is treated
as a load, but from experience we know 8xx doesn't work
that way. Of course, since dcbst is a store operation,
you could argue that 8xx got it correct :-)
Have fun!
-- Dan
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-08 20:18:24
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 13:11 -0700, Dan Malek wrote:
There are many comments written about 8xx as various
behavior was discovered. Worse, some of these details
would be different among the different processor versions.
You need to be careful and test as many different part
versions as possible to ensure you have everything
covered..... then someone will find a part that doesn't
quite work, "fix" it, and break others :-)
In this particular case, the PEM does state dcbst is treated
as a load, but from experience we know 8xx doesn't work
that way. Of course, since dcbst is a store operation,
you could argue that 8xx got it correct :-)
Hehe. Well, it's architecturally incorrect, as dcbst is not really a
store operation in the sense that it doesn't modify the target cache
line, and as such doesn't (mustn't) be covered by write access
protection, shouldn't set DIRTY, etc...
So I would argue that 8xx got it wrong either way :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-08 20:21:34
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 08:45 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
Generic code should sort it out in handle_mm_fault() (or earlier if it
can't find a VMA at all).
How can it? You need to know more that just read and write.
It does. It's going to look for the VMA, which will tell it what is
allowed or not. You'll notice 4xx/BookE doesn't use DSISR (except the
ESR bit we pass to separate loads from stores).
If the region has no access, the kernel will know it (no VMA for
example) and will trigger a SEGV.
Really, the DSISR stuff is not as necessary as you think it is :-) You
should be able to jump to C code straight from both TLB error
interrupts.
quoted
But that's a slow path anyways.
How so? You take a TLB Error for the first write to
every page.
Compared to the TLB miss that is :-) But my main point is that a TLB
error caused by a lack of DIRTY or ACCESSED will be rare.
Ben.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-08 20:28:35
Hoy Dan !
While you are around ... I have a question :-)
Do you happen to remember what the story is with the invalidation of
"unpopulated" (aka invalid) entries ?
IE. We create those in the 8xx TLB miss when the PTE is !present (or the
PMD is absent). Those then cause a TLB error on the next access which
allows us to process the page fault. But when/how are those invalid
entries supposed to be invalidated ?
The doco seems to hint that at least in the case of an entry with the
wrong C bit (store to an entry with C=0), the HW automatically
invalidates it before taking the TLB Error but that's all I found.
Is there a general HW policy on 8xx to invalidate TLB entries that cause
TLB errors ? Or is the kernel expected to do it most of the time ?
Cheers,
Ben.
Dan Malek [off-list ref] wrote on 08/10/2009 22:11:07:
On Oct 8, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
hare are comments in the kernel that dcbst wrongly
generates TLB Errors with store set on 8xx. Is this really so?
Should dcbst always trap as a load?
Hi, been a long time since I heard from you :)
There are many comments written about 8xx as various
behavior was discovered. Worse, some of these details
would be different among the different processor versions.
You need to be careful and test as many different part
versions as possible to ensure you have everything
covered..... then someone will find a part that doesn't
quite work, "fix" it, and break others :-)
In this particular case, the PEM does state dcbst is treated
as a load, but from experience we know 8xx doesn't work
that way. Of course, since dcbst is a store operation,
you could argue that 8xx got it correct :-)
One could try clearing the store bit in the page fault handler, but then
that might cause a loop.
Not sure it has any practical meaning though.
Anyhow, you are welcome to have a look at the patches I have been tossing out.
Jocke
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-08 20:43:28
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 21:22 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 07/10/2009 23:18:05:
quoted
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:46 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
quoted
8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs in
it DTLB asm handler.
These must be invalidated separaly as linux mm don't.
not sure about the dsisr test here, what is the point ?
Without this patch I get about twice as many DTLB errors( on 2.4)
Ok, so it is useful... I would have thought that invalidating a TLB
entry that just caused a fault mostly be a nop.. well, the tlbie on 8xx
ignores the ASID so maybe it's invalidating next door process entries
but even that doesn't sound right. The TLB is so tiny on these things...
Oh well, as I said, something else to look at more closely.
I have also noted that all my dcbst DTLB has the store bit set:
trap:300 address:10030b8c, dar:10030b8c,err:42000000 dcbst
Thare are comments in the kernel that dcbst wrongly
generates TLB Errors with store set on 8xx. Is this really so?
Should dcbst always trap as a load?
Architecturally it should, that's a known 8xx core bug.
Cheers,
Ben.
@@ -243,6 +243,12 @@ good_area:gotobad_area;#endif /* CONFIG_6xx */#if defined(CONFIG_8xx)+/* 8xx sometimes need to load a invalid/non-present TLBs.+*Thesemustbeinvalidatedseparatelyaslinuxmmdon't.+*/+if(error_code&0x40000000)/* no translation? */+_tlbil_va(address);+/* The MPC8xx seems to always set 0x80000000, which is*"undefined".Ofthosethatcanbeset,thisistheonly*onewhichseemsbad.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-08 20:44:28
One could try clearing the store bit in the page fault handler, but then
that might cause a loop.
Not sure it has any practical meaning though.
Anyhow, you are welcome to have a look at the patches I have been tossing out.
The store bit in do_page_fault() is -very- important (and the only DSISR
bit that is as I wrote earlier). The generic code must know if a fault
is caused by a load or a store since the later is what will cause
copy_on_write to happen for example, or dirty to be set, etc..
Ben.
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2009-10-08 22:08:08
Hi Ben.
On Oct 8, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
While you are around ... I have a question :-)
I'll try. Many brain cells have been replaced or lost
over the years :-)
Do you happen to remember what the story is with the invalidation of
"unpopulated" (aka invalid) entries ?
IE. We create those in the 8xx TLB miss when the PTE is !present
(or the
PMD is absent). Those then cause a TLB error on the next access which
allows us to process the page fault. But when/how are those invalid
entries supposed to be invalidated ?
I thought we did a tlbie() (or whatever the equivalent is today)
when the PTE was updated in the table. An optimization was to
load the TLB with the entry at that time to avoid a subsequent miss.
In any case, the TLB entry has to be modified by the software.
The doco seems to hint that at least in the case of an entry with the
wrong C bit (store to an entry with C=0), the HW automatically
invalidates it before taking the TLB Error but that's all I found.
I don't remember how C was used in the past, but I suspect
it just mirrored the Linux VM state. I'm quite certain the MMU
HW would never change a TLB entry. Where did you read this?
For most of the 8xx "early days," I used to just mark all write
pages as dirty. For some reason I just overloaded the write/changed
into one bit, it avoided TLB Error overhead and I think even some
silicon bugs. Since they were tiny and fairly static embedded
systems, it didn't have any effect on the way VM was managed.
Is there a general HW policy on 8xx to invalidate TLB entries that
cause
TLB errors ? Or is the kernel expected to do it most of the time ?
The MMU HW on the 8xx is just a translator. I'm now really
certain it won't ever change a TLB entry. It's completely up to
software to make all TLB changes.
Just make it simple :-)
Thanks.
-- Dan
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-08 22:24:21
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 15:08 -0700, Dan Malek wrote:
Hi Ben.
On Oct 8, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted
While you are around ... I have a question :-)
I'll try. Many brain cells have been replaced or lost
over the years :-)
Replaced ? You lucky ! I only lose mines :-)
I thought we did a tlbie() (or whatever the equivalent is today)
when the PTE was updated in the table. An optimization was to
load the TLB with the entry at that time to avoid a subsequent miss.
In any case, the TLB entry has to be modified by the software.
Ok, that's my understanding too and I think we had the tlbie in
update_mmu_cache to do the trick, though the comment is misleading
making it think that the only reason it's there is for the dcbst
problem. At least that's my understanding. That was lost recently in 2.6
so I'll have to put it back properly.
I don't think we do the pre-load to avoid the second fault, but we
certainly could and should.
I don't remember how C was used in the past, but I suspect
it just mirrored the Linux VM state. I'm quite certain the MMU
HW would never change a TLB entry. Where did you read this?
MPC855UM, chapter 8.6 "Memory attributes":
<<
• Reference and change bit updates—The MPC850 does not generate an exception for
an R (reference) bit update. In fact, there is no entry for an R bit in the TLB.
The change bit (C) is bit 23 in the level-two descriptor, described in Table 8-4.
Software updates C (changed) bits, but hardware treats the C bit (negated) as a
write-protect attribute. Therefore, attempting to write to a page marked unmodified
invalidates that entry and causes an implementation-specific DTLB error exception.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If change bits are not needed, set the C bit to one by default in the PTEs.
quoted
And yes, it's weird and that's the only place I think where this is
mentioned which makes me think it could well be a doco bug.
For most of the 8xx "early days," I used to just mark all write
pages as dirty. For some reason I just overloaded the write/changed
into one bit, it avoided TLB Error overhead and I think even some
silicon bugs. Since they were tiny and fairly static embedded
systems, it didn't have any effect on the way VM was managed.
Well, nowadays at least, most of the time, a writeable page is also
dirty unless it's a writeable shared mapping, and in that later case
you really want to do proper dirty tracking. So I suspect we can
simplify some of that and let the generic code handle dirty by mapping
_PAGE_DIRTY to C and removing _PAGE_HWWRITE. We can also remove all
of the asm munging from DataTLBError, and let the generic C code fixup
DIRTY and ACCESSED when needed, since those should only rarely need a
fixup.
The MMU HW on the 8xx is just a translator. I'm now really
certain it won't ever change a TLB entry. It's completely up to
software to make all TLB changes.
That makes sense.
Just make it simple :-)
Yeah. I think we can simplify the current code a lot, which will speed
up TLB misses (well, nothing much you can do about the infamous errata
#6 but that's another story). It won't give 2.6 back the 2.4 speed due
to sheer bloat of the generic code but it might at least offset some of
the loss by improving the overall TLB miss performance.
Now, I don't have any 8xx gear, so it will be up to Joakim, Scott etc...
to get that stuff right :-)
Thanks for your feedback.
Cheers,
Ben.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 09/10/2009 00:23:48:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 15:08 -0700, Dan Malek wrote:
quoted
Hi Ben.
On Oct 8, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted
While you are around ... I have a question :-)
I'll try. Many brain cells have been replaced or lost
over the years :-)
Replaced ? You lucky ! I only lose mines :-)
quoted
I thought we did a tlbie() (or whatever the equivalent is today)
when the PTE was updated in the table. An optimization was to
load the TLB with the entry at that time to avoid a subsequent miss.
In any case, the TLB entry has to be modified by the software.
Ok, that's my understanding too and I think we had the tlbie in
update_mmu_cache to do the trick, though the comment is misleading
making it think that the only reason it's there is for the dcbst
problem. At least that's my understanding. That was lost recently in 2.6
so I'll have to put it back properly.
So you don't think my invalidate "only !present pages" patch in do_page_fault
is enough?
I don't think we do the pre-load to avoid the second fault, but we
certainly could and should.
quoted
I don't remember how C was used in the past, but I suspect
it just mirrored the Linux VM state. I'm quite certain the MMU
HW would never change a TLB entry. Where did you read this?
MPC855UM, chapter 8.6 "Memory attributes":
<<
• Reference and change bit updates—The MPC850 does not generate an exception for
an R (reference) bit update. In fact, there is no entry for an R bit in the TLB.
The change bit (C) is bit 23 in the level-two descriptor, described in Table 8-4.
Software updates C (changed) bits, but hardware treats the C bit (negated) as a
write-protect attribute. Therefore, attempting to write to a page marked unmodified
invalidates that entry and causes an implementation-specific DTLB error exception.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If change bits are not needed, set the C bit to one by default in the PTEs.
quoted
quoted
And yes, it's weird and that's the only place I think where this is
mentioned which makes me think it could well be a doco bug.
quoted
For most of the 8xx "early days," I used to just mark all write
pages as dirty. For some reason I just overloaded the write/changed
into one bit, it avoided TLB Error overhead and I think even some
silicon bugs. Since they were tiny and fairly static embedded
systems, it didn't have any effect on the way VM was managed.
Well, nowadays at least, most of the time, a writeable page is also
dirty unless it's a writeable shared mapping, and in that later case
you really want to do proper dirty tracking. So I suspect we can
simplify some of that and let the generic code handle dirty by mapping
_PAGE_DIRTY to C and removing _PAGE_HWWRITE. We can also remove all
of the asm munging from DataTLBError, and let the generic C code fixup
DIRTY and ACCESSED when needed, since those should only rarely need a
fixup.
quoted
The MMU HW on the 8xx is just a translator. I'm now really
certain it won't ever change a TLB entry. It's completely up to
software to make all TLB changes.
That makes sense.
quoted
Just make it simple :-)
Yeah. I think we can simplify the current code a lot, which will speed
up TLB misses (well, nothing much you can do about the infamous errata
#6 but that's another story). It won't give 2.6 back the 2.4 speed due
to sheer bloat of the generic code but it might at least offset some of
the loss by improving the overall TLB miss performance.
It won't get much faster than my current patch. Trapping all DTLB
Errors to C won't make it faster, only more correct should there be
a bug in the asm version. Actually there is one that has been there
all the time, guarded flag is not set by DTLB Error.
Jocke
Now, I don't have any 8xx gear, so it will be up to Joakim, Scott etc...
to get that stuff right :-)
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2009-10-09 00:04:42
On Oct 8, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Hi, been a long time since I heard from you :)
Yeah, hiding among other projects :-)
Anyhow, you are welcome to have a look at the patches I have been
tossing out.
I've been looking, but since I'm not familiar with the current
VM implementation, there isn't much I can contribute. If
I see something where I can be useful, I'll speak up.
Thanks.
-- Dan
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2009-10-09 00:35:45
On Oct 8, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
<<
=95 Reference and change bit updates=97The MPC850 does not generate an =
=20
exception for
an R (reference) bit update. In fact, there is no entry for an R =20
bit in the TLB.
The change bit (C) is bit 23 in the level-two descriptor, =20
described in Table 8-4.
Software updates C (changed) bits, but hardware treats the C bit =20
(negated) as a
write-protect attribute. Therefore, attempting to write to a page =20=
marked unmodified
invalidates that entry and causes an implementation-specific DTLB =20=
error exception.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If change bits are not needed, set the C bit to one by default in =20=
the PTEs.
How interesting....
I've looked at many 8xx docs and they all have the same text
(probably cut/paste :-)) I'd place some debug code in the C functions
to print out a few of the TLB Entry for various errors to see if this =20=
really
happens, and for other errors, too. I guess I never stumbled into
this because I always thought I had to do everything from software,
so just made sure I did.
-- Dan
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-09 00:57:25
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 01:01 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ok, that's my understanding too and I think we had the tlbie in
quoted
update_mmu_cache to do the trick, though the comment is misleading
making it think that the only reason it's there is for the dcbst
problem. At least that's my understanding. That was lost recently in
2.6
quoted
so I'll have to put it back properly.
So you don't think my invalidate "only !present pages" patch in
do_page_fault is enough?
It might well be the right solution, I was talking about the code as we
have upstream today.
I don't think we do the pre-load to avoid the second fault, but we
It won't get much faster than my current patch. Trapping all DTLB
Errors to C won't make it faster, only more correct should there be
a bug in the asm version. Actually there is one that has been there
all the time, guarded flag is not set by DTLB Error.
There's other areas of improvements I suggested that can make it faster
such as avoiding the whole kernel/user test in the TLB misses.
Removing the stuff in DataTLBError can potentially make normal page
faults faster too by avoiding going through a bunch of useless code
before going to do the real thing in C :-)
As I said, the case of ACCESSED or DIRTY updates are rare enough to not
warrant code in the main page fault hot path.
Cheers,
Ben.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2009-10-09 00:58:25
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:36 -0700, Dan Malek wrote:
On Oct 8, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted
<<
• Reference and change bit updates—The MPC850 does not generate an
exception for
an R (reference) bit update. In fact, there is no entry for an R
bit in the TLB.
The change bit (C) is bit 23 in the level-two descriptor,
described in Table 8-4.
Software updates C (changed) bits, but hardware treats the C bit
(negated) as a
write-protect attribute. Therefore, attempting to write to a page
marked unmodified
invalidates that entry and causes an implementation-specific DTLB
error exception.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If change bits are not needed, set the C bit to one by default in
the PTEs.
How interesting....
I've looked at many 8xx docs and they all have the same text
(probably cut/paste :-)) I'd place some debug code in the C functions
to print out a few of the TLB Entry for various errors to see if this
really
happens, and for other errors, too. I guess I never stumbled into
this because I always thought I had to do everything from software,
so just made sure I did.
I'm not sure it's worth bothering :-) I'm happy to continue assuming we
need to tlbie and always make sure we do so.
Cheers,
Ben.