Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow nesting of lazy MMU mode
From: Erhard Furtner <hidden>
Date: 2023-10-17 23:14:55
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:34:23 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
ie, we can do something like below. The change also make sure we call set_pte_filter on all the ptes we are setting via set_ptes(). I haven't sent this as a proper patch because we still are not able to fix the issue Erhard reported.diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c index 3ba9fe411604..95ab20cca2da 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c@@ -191,28 +191,35 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte, unsigned int nr) { /* - * Make sure hardware valid bit is not set. We don't do - * tlb flush for this update. + * We don't need to call arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu_mode() + * because we expect set_ptes to be only be used on not present + * and not hw_valid ptes. Hence there is not translation cache flush + * involved that need to be batched. */ - VM_WARN_ON(pte_hw_valid(*ptep) && !pte_protnone(*ptep)); + for (;;) { - /* Note: mm->context.id might not yet have been assigned as - * this context might not have been activated yet when this - * is called. - */ - pte = set_pte_filter(pte); + /* + * Make sure hardware valid bit is not set. We don't do + * tlb flush for this update. + */ + VM_WARN_ON(pte_hw_valid(*ptep) && !pte_protnone(*ptep)); - /* Perform the setting of the PTE */ - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode(); - for (;;) { + /* Note: mm->context.id might not yet have been assigned as + * this context might not have been activated yet when this + * is called. + */ + pte = set_pte_filter(pte); + + /* Perform the setting of the PTE */ __set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, pte, 0); if (--nr == 0) break; ptep++; - pte = __pte(pte_val(pte) + (1UL << PTE_RPN_SHIFT)); addr += PAGE_SIZE; + /* increment the pfn */ + pte = __pte(pte_val(pte) + PAGE_SIZE); + } - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(); } void unmap_kernel_page(unsigned long va)
Was this a new version of the patch for me to test? Sorry for asking but this was a bit unclear to me. In any case I tried it on top of v6.6-rc6 and it did not help with the issue I reported. Regards, Erhard