On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 06:35:08PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This is an assembler version to fixup DAR not being set
by dcbX, icbi instructions. There are two versions, one
uses selfmodifing code, the other uses a
jump table but is much bigger(default).
---
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 14/10/2009 19:20:03:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 06:35:08PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This is an assembler version to fixup DAR not being set
by dcbX, icbi instructions. There are two versions, one
uses selfmodifing code, the other uses a
jump
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
BTW, you could add a test and printk in do_page_fault on address 0x00f0.
if that ever hits there is a problem with dcbX fixup.
It doesn't get any 0xf0 faults.
FWIW, I'm not seeing the segfault any more, but I still get the lockup.
-Scott
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 14/10/2009 21:23:02:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
BTW, you could add a test and printk in do_page_fault on address 0x00f0.
if that ever hits there is a problem with dcbX fixup.
It doesn't get any 0xf0 faults.
FWIW, I'm not seeing the segfault any
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 14/10/2009 21:23:02:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
BTW, you could add a test and printk in do_page_fault on address 0x00f0.
if that ever hits there is a problem with dcbX fixup.
It doesn't get any 0xf0 faults.
FWIW, I'm not
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 14/10/2009 22:22:25:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 14/10/2009 21:23:02:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
BTW, you could add a test and printk in do_page_fault on address
0x00f0.
if that ever hits there is a
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
With that, I don't see the hard lockup, but things get stuck during
You needed both to loose the hard lockup? I would think
it should be enough to revert the various copy routines stuff?
No, but when I just reverted the patch and didn't change the TLB error handler,
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 16:14 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
I think the last working version was a little older than that -- and it's
quite
possible that there was underlying badness even earlier that just recently
got
exposed. I think I want to just debug it and find out what's really going
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote on 14/10/2009 23:17:09:
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 16:14 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
I think the last working version was a little older than that -- and it's
quite
possible that there was underlying badness even earlier that just recently
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 23:41 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote on 14/10/2009
23:17:09:
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 16:14 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
I think the last working version was a little older than that -- and it's
quite
possible
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote on 14/10/2009 23:52:10:
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 23:41 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote on 14/10/2009
23:17:09:
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 16:14 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
I think
11 matches
Mail list logo
