Re: [PATCH 2/6] 8xx: get rid of _PAGE_HWWRITE dependency in MMU.
From: Joakim Tjernlund <hidden>
Date: 2009-10-07 23:15:56
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 08/10/2009 00:20:17:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:08 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:quoted
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote on 07/10/2009 23:14:52:quoted
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:46 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:quoted
+ andi. r11, r10, _PAGE_USER | _PAGE_ACCESSED + cmpwi cr0, r11, _PAGE_USER | _PAGE_ACCESSED + bne- cr0, 2fDid you mean _PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_ACCESSED ?
YES! cut and paste error, will send a new much improved patch with my new idea.
quoted
quoted
quoted
+2: + mfspr r11, SRR1 + rlwinm r11, r11, 0, 5, 3 /* clear guarded */ + mtspr SRR1, r11What is the above for ?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 outI 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.