RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Barnes, Jesse <jesse.barnes@...>
Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Packard, Keith <keith.packard@...>, Siddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@...>
Date: Friday, May 2, 2008 - 5:55 pm

>-----Original Message-----

Indeed.
I think these messages are due to X using the mprotect workaround to
change UC_MINUS to WB.
I don't see these error messages on my 965 here. May be I have different
x version.

What may be happening:
1) process A mmaps /dev/mem and gets UC_MINUS
2) Changes the page table to make pg_prot WB
3) Does a fork to create process B
4) While copying the vma, we go through map_devmem request WB, but get
UC_MINUS back
5) We are not changing vma pg_prot to new value at this point (we should
change this), so one more round of errors will be there when forked
process exits.

Again, this should not have any side-effect like the band etc. It just a
"friendly warning". It should go away when X moves to using WC or does
not use the mprotect workaround to make pg_prot WB.

Thanks,
Venki
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Fri May 2, 3:22 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 3:37 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 4:40 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 11:57 am)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Venki Pallipadi, (Tue May 6, 6:42 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Sun May 25, 11:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Wed May 7, 3:02 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 6:36 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Wed May 7, 3:18 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 7:23 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Fri May 9, 6:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:05 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Fri May 9, 6:11 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 1:45 am)
RE: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 9, 6:20 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Sat May 10, 2:19 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 2:29 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:09 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Fri May 9, 4:48 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 1:45 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 3:04 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Frans Pop, (Fri Jun 13, 12:42 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:59 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:00 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Ingo Molnar, (Sun May 4, 5:04 am)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 5:55 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 6:07 pm)