Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - 9:56 pm

Andi Kleen wrote:

Yeah, that may be true, but this particular tree is weird, and I'm 
trying to understand what's going on here.  Specifically, 64-bit 
ioremap()s *don't* set _PAGE_GLOBAL, which appears to be an accident 
resulting from the strange definitions of __PAGE_KERNEL_* vs 
PAGE_KERNEL_*. 

For example, ioremap_64.c:__ioremap() creates a vma for the io mapping, 
and explicitly sets _PAGE_GLOBAL in the vma's version of pgprot - but 
then it calls ioremap_page_range() to actually create the mapping, which 
ends up making a non-global mapping, because its rolling its own version 
of PAGE_KERNEL by using pgprot(__PAGE_KERNEL) - which is not the actual 
definition of PAGE_KERNEL.

I think there's a bug around here, but I think its currently being 
hidden by accident.  I think my changes are correct, and they're 
exposing some other bug.  But I don't really understand how all this 
stuff is supposed to fit together, so I'm looking for an explanation of 
what's supposed to be happening - and ideally - why the current code 
isn't actually buggy.

For example: is ioremap_change_attr() actually *deliberately* creating 
non-global mappings?  Or is it an accident?  And if it really intends to 
create non-global mappings, why?  And why is it buggy for it to create 
global mappings?

    J
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 6:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 7:12 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 7:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 7:28 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 8:07 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 7:44 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 8:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 8:13 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 8:20 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 8:28 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 8:30 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 8:53 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Andi Kleen, (Tue Jan 8, 9:11 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 8:59 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 9:07 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Andi Kleen, (Tue Jan 8, 9:12 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 9:35 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jan Beulich, (Wed Jan 9, 5:37 am)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Andi Kleen, (Tue Jan 8, 9:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 9:56 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Andi Kleen, (Tue Jan 8, 10:11 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Jan 9, 6:47 am)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Andi Kleen, (Wed Jan 9, 10:26 am)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 11:22 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Jan 9, 6:48 am)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 9:20 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 8:43 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 9:09 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 9:16 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 9:21 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 9:37 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Andi Kleen, (Tue Jan 8, 9:18 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 9:22 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Andi Kleen, (Tue Jan 8, 9:37 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 8:55 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 8, 7:51 pm)
[PATCH 05 of 10] x86: page.h: make pte_t a union to always i..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 02 of 10] x86: avoid name conflict for Voyager leave_mm, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 09 of 10] x86: unify paravirt pagetable accessors, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 10 of 10] xen: mask out PWT too, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
Re: [PATCH 10 of 10] xen: mask out PWT too, Jan Beulich, (Wed Jan 9, 5:17 am)
Re: [PATCH 10 of 10] xen: mask out PWT too, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Wed Jan 9, 3:04 pm)
[PATCH 08 of 10] x86: unify zero_page definition, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 06 of 10] x86/vmi: fix compilation as a result of pte..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 04 of 10] x86: unify pgtable accessors which use supp..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 07 of 10] x86: pgtable: unify pte accessors, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 01 of 10] x86: move all asm/pgtable constants into on..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)
[PATCH 03 of 10] x86/pgtable: unify pagetable accessors, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Jan 8, 6:00 pm)