Re: [PATCH] powerpc/book3s/mm: Clear MMU_FTR_HPTE_TABLE when radix is enabled.

Aneesh Kumar K.V's on May 16, 2019 11:36 pm:

On 5/16/19 10:34 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:

quoted

Aneesh Kumar K.V's on May 14, 2019 4:02 pm:

quoted

Avoids confusion when printing Oops message like below

  Faulting instruction address: 0xc00000000008bdb4
  Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
  LE PAGE_SIZE=64K MMU=Radix MMU=Hash SMP NR_CPUS=2048 NUMA PowerNV

Either ibm,pa-features or ibm,powerpc-cpu-features can be used to enable the
MMU features. We don't clear related MMU feature bits there. We use the kernel
commandline to determine what translation mode we want to use and clear the
HPTE or radix bit accordingly. On LPAR we do have to renable HASH bit if the
hypervisor can't do radix.

Well we have the HPTE feature: the CPU supports hash MMU mode. It's
just the the kernel is booted in radix mode.

We are not using mmu_features to indicate the capability of the hardware 
right? ie, mmu_features is an indication of current running config.

It's kind of both.

We 
set MMU_FTR_TYPE_RADIX if the kernel is running in radix translation 
mode and on similar lines we should set MMU_FTR_HPTE_TABLE if the kernel 
is running in only hash translation mode. Whether the hardware support 
these translation mode is different from which mode is currently used.

I don't see why that logic follows. We have MMU_FTR_TYPE_RADIX to
determine if we are running in radix or HPT mode, why do we need
another bit for the same thing?

quoted

Could make a difference for KVM, if it will support an HPT guest or
not.

kvm should not depend on MMU_FTR_HPTE_TABLE to identify whether the 
hardware supports hash page table translation.

Why not though?

I don't think we do that.

It doesn't, but the point is the bit is kind of useful now (in
theory if you wanted to do something like that), but if you just
make it an inverse of the current mode bit we already have, then
it's useless.

Point is, just use the existing radix MMU selection bit that we
use everywhere else to fix the problem. If that finishes off the
only 64-bit users of the bit and you want to get rid of that as
well I'm fine with that too.

Thanks,
Nick