Linux 2.6.x on 8xx status

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:53:40PM -0500, Dan Malek wrote:
> 
> On Mar 22, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> >Newbie question: What prevents the initial kernel map (tuple of 8Mbyte 
> >I/D-TLB entries)
> >and the IMMR 8Mbyte D-TLB entry from getting unmapped by translation 
> >pressure,
> >in case CONFIG_PIN_TLB is disabled ?
> 
> Nothing.  In fact, they are likely invalidated shortly after the kernel
> page tables are set up.  This was only done to ensure we could get the
> kernel initialized without taking page faults.

OK.

> >By a counter at the end of _tlbie function, similar to other counters 
> >which
> >you suggested.
> 
> OK.
> 
> >Dont think thats the case given that v2.4 calls tlbia through 
> >flush_tlb_mm() at exit_mmap()
> >only. And at vmalloc_free which shouldnt be called at all.
> 
> Hmmm ...  Then, the 2.6 looks to be much less efficient with the MMU
> resources than 2.4 was.  This is going to affect everyone, it's just 
> easier
> to measure on this processor.

Many codepaths are longer (eg. but the difference 

> 
> >I just noticed this conditional at switch_mm() (v2.6), which _can_ 
> >partly
> >explain the reduced tlbie's  (its just a guess for now, though):
> 
> What is your guess?  I don't know how this would reduce the number
> of tlbie instructions, since stealing a context (as part of 
> get_context())
> will simply whack the whole TLB with a tlbia.  On 8xx, both instructions
> could be simply implemented as macros.

You misunderstood: get_mmu_context() _wont_ be called if the mm structures 
are the same.

v2.4 didnt had this optimization. 

> >Spent part of the day reading the MMU section of 860 manual, I think I 
> >have kind
> >of a clue how things are supposed to work at the lowlevel now.
> 
> :-)
> 
> >PS: I can't reproduce the invalid TLB crash anymore. i.e. even by 
> >removing
> >the _tlbie() at update_mmu_cache() everything is working as expected.
> 
> Well, that's interesting.  It's likely to only happen on an 860 variant 
> that
> has the large TLB.

For what reasoning? 

> >How can I reproduce it again? Guillaume, what kernel version are you 
> >using?
> 
> It used to happen on early 2.6 versions as soon as you entered user
> space programs.

Will let you know of any findings...