[PATCH v2 07/23] mips: update_mmu_cache() can replace __update_tlb()
Hugh Dickins
hughd at google.com
Thu Jun 15 15:43:30 AEST 2023
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >
> > I just bisected a crash while powering down a MIPS machine in QEMU to
> > this change as commit 8044511d3893 ("mips: update_mmu_cache() can
> > replace __update_tlb()") in linux-next.
>
> Thank you, Nathan, that's very helpful indeed. This patch certainly knew
> that it wanted testing, and I'm glad to hear that it is now seeing some.
>
> While powering down? The messages below look like it was just coming up,
> but no doubt that's because you were bisecting (or because I'm unfamiliar
> with what messages to expect there). It's probably irrelevant information,
> but I wonder whether the (V)machine worked well enough for a while before
> you first powered down and spotted the problem, or whether it's never got
> much further than trying to run init (busybox)? I'm trying to get a feel
> for whether the problem occurs under common or uncommon conditions.
>
> > Unfortunately, I can still
> > reproduce it with the existing fix you have for this change on the
> > mailing list, which is present in next-20230614.
>
> Right, that later fix was only for a build warning, nothing functional
> (or at least I hoped that it wasn't making any functional difference).
>
> Thanks a lot for the detailed instructions below: unfortunately, those
> would draw me into a realm of testing I've never needed to enter before,
> so a lot of time spent on setup and learning. Usually, I just stare at
> the source.
>
> What this probably says is that I should revert most my cleanup there,
> and keep as close to the existing code as possible. But some change is
> needed, and I may need to understand (or have a good guess at) what was
> going wrong, to decide what kind of retreat will be successful.
>
> Back to the source for a while: I hope I'll find examples in nearby MIPS
> kernel source (and git history), which will hint at the right way forward.
> Then send you a patch against next-20230614 to try, when I'm reasonably
> confident that it's enough to satisfy my purpose, but likely not to waste
> your time.
I'm going to take advantage of your good nature by attaching
two alternative patches, either to go on top of next-20230614.
mips1.patch,
arch/mips/mm/tlb-r4k.c | 12 +-----------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
is by far my favourite. I couldn't see anything wrong with what's
already there for mips, but it seems possible that (though I didn't
find it) somewhere calls update_mmu_cache_pmd() on a page table. So
mips1.patch restores the pmd_huge() check, and cleans up further by
removing the silly pgdp, p4dp, pudp, pmdp stuff: the pointer has now
been passed in by the caller, why walk the tree again? I should have
done it this way before.
But if that doesn't work, then I'm afraid it will have to be
mips2.patch,
arch/mips/include/asm/pgtable.h | 15 ++++++++++++---
arch/mips/mm/tlb-r3k.c | 5 ++---
arch/mips/mm/tlb-r4k.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
which reverts all of the original patch and its build warning fix,
and does a pte_unmap() to balance the silly pte_offset_map() there;
with an apologetic comment for this being about the only place in
the tree where I have no idea what to do if ptep were NULL.
I do hope that you find the first fixes the breakage; but if not, then
I even more fervently hope that the second will, despite my hating it.
Touch wood for the first, fingers crossed for the second, thanks,
Hugh
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mips1.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 900 bytes
Desc:
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20230614/b1272a7d/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mips2.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3927 bytes
Desc:
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20230614/b1272a7d/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list