From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 4 01:44:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E8E106564A for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 01:44:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from duck.symmetricom.us (duck.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49D58FC0A for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 01:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org (daffy.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.218]) by duck.symmetricom.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q841i3bb045281 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 19:44:04 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q841i1HZ040570; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 19:44:01 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) From: Ian Lepore To: Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <5045351F.6060201@rice.edu> References: <502FD67A.7030003@rice.edu> <1345315508.27688.260.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <503D12AE.1050705@rice.edu> <1346350374.1140.525.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <5045351F.6060201@rice.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:44:01 -0600 Message-ID: <1346723041.1140.602.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "arm@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: arm pmap locking X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 01:44:05 -0000 On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 17:54 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On 08/30/2012 13:12, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 13:49 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > >> Can you please retry with the attached patch? For the time being, I > >> decided to address the above problem by simply enabling recursion on the > >> new pmap lock. As I mentioned in my prior message, the lock recursion > >> in the arm pmap is a mistake. However, I'd rather not change two things > >> at once, i.e., replace the page queues lock and fix the lock recursion. > >> I'll take a look at eliminating the lock recursion later this week. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alan > >> > > Sorry for the delay, I finally got around to trying this today, and it > > seems to be working well initially -- it boots to multiuser and the only > > difference in the dmesg.boot with and without the patch is the compile > > date, and the kernel image is 128 bytes smaller with the patch. I've > > got DIAGNOSTIC and INVARIANTS enabled; I'll run with the patch in place > > and let you know if anything glitches. > > > > Could you please test the attached patch? This is a small step toward > disentangling the arm pmap locking. > > Alan > Applied the patch, it's running just fine. -- Ian