[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-ppc: Correct ppc3500_spin initial TLB si
From: |
Scott Wood |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-ppc: Correct ppc3500_spin initial TLB size |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:04:05 +0000 |
On 06/19/2016 09:13 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:55:47PM +0000, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 06/17/2016 05:13 PM, Aaron Larson wrote:
>>> When e500 PPC is booted multi-core, the non-boot cores are started via
>>> the spin table. ppce500_spin.c:spin_kick() calls
>>> mmubooke_create_initial_mapping() to allocate a 64MB TLB entry, but
>>> the created TLB entry is only 256KB.
>>>
>>> The root cause is that the function computing the size of the TLB
>>> entry, namely booke206_page_size_to_tlb assumes MAS1.TSIZE as defined
>>> by latter PPC cores, specifically (n**4)KB. The result is then used by
>>> mmubooke_create_initial_mapping using MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT, but
>>> MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT is defined assuming TLB entries are (n**2)KB. I.e., a
>>> difference of shift=7 or shift=8.
>>>
>>> Simply changing MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT from 7 to 8 is not appropriate since
>>> the macro is used elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Larson <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>> hw/ppc/ppce500_spin.c | 6 +++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppce500_spin.c b/hw/ppc/ppce500_spin.c
>>> index 76bd78b..7e38f0c 100644
>>> --- a/hw/ppc/ppce500_spin.c
>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/ppce500_spin.c
>>> @@ -75,7 +75,11 @@ static void spin_reset(void *opaque)
>>> /* Create -kernel TLB entries for BookE, linearly spanning 256MB. */
>>> static inline hwaddr booke206_page_size_to_tlb(uint64_t size)
>>> {
>>> - return ctz32(size >> 10) >> 1;
>>> + /* The EREF indicates that TLB pages are (4 to the power of 2)KB, which
>>> + * corresponds to MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT=8, but to support legacy processors
>>> that
>>> + * assume TLB pages are (2 to the power of 2)KB MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT is
>>> + * currently 7. */
>>
>> This is backwards. It's the old processors that can only handle
>> power-of-4 sizes.
>
> To clarify, is this a problem in the code, or just in the comment?
Just the comment.
-Scott