From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 30 18:12:58 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992E21065675 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:12:58 +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 4C4288FC15 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:12:57 +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 q7UICuOR050842 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:12:57 -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 q7UICsIv036066; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:12:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) From: Ian Lepore To: Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <503D12AE.1050705@rice.edu> References: <502FD67A.7030003@rice.edu> <1345315508.27688.260.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <503D12AE.1050705@rice.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:12:54 -0600 Message-ID: <1346350374.1140.525.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: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:12:58 -0000 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. -- Ian