----- Original Message -----
On 02/17/2012 12:43 AM, Dave Anderson wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 02/16/2012 09:52 PM, Dave Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> ...
>>>>> So just do the same thing -- no verbose expanation is required.
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways to fix this :
>>>>
>>>> 1) Fix dump_mem_map*() to print the header only when there is
>>>> information to dump.
>>>>
>>>> --- a/memory.c
>>>> +++ b/memory.c
>>>> @@ -4637,13 +4637,6 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo
>>>> *mi)
>>>> continue;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - if (print_hdr) {
>>>> - if (!(pc->curcmd_flags&
>>>> HEADER_PRINTED))
>>>> - fprintf(fp, "%s", hdr);
>>>> - print_hdr = FALSE;
>>>> - pc->curcmd_flags |= HEADER_PRINTED;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>> pp = section_mem_map_addr(section);
>>>> pp = sparse_decode_mem_map(pp, section_nr);
>>>> phys = (physaddr_t) section_nr *
>>>> PAGES_PER_SECTION()
>>>> * PAGESIZE();
>>>> @@ -4854,6 +4847,13 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo
>>>> *mi)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (bufferindex> buffersize) {
>>>> + if (print_hdr) {
>>>> + if (!(pc->curcmd_flags&
>>>> HEADER_PRINTED))
>>>> + fprintf(fp,
>>>> "%s",
>>>> hdr);
>>>> + print_hdr = FALSE;
>>>> + pc->curcmd_flags |=
>>>> HEADER_PRINTED;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> fprintf(fp, "%s",
>>>> outputbuffer);
>>>> bufferindex = 0;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -4867,6 +4867,13 @@ dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM(struct meminfo
>>>> *mi)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (bufferindex> 0) {
>>>> + if (print_hdr) {
>>>> + if (!(pc->curcmd_flags&
>>>> HEADER_PRINTED))
>>>> + fprintf(fp, "%s", hdr);
>>>> + print_hdr = FALSE;
>>>> + pc->curcmd_flags |= HEADER_PRINTED;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> fprintf(fp, "%s", outputbuffer);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Similarly for the dump_mem_map().
>>>>
>>>> 2) Fix ppc_pgd_vtop() to return FALSE if the paddr>
>>>> machdep->memsize
>>>>
>>>> --- a/ppc.c
>>>> +++ b/ppc.c
>>>> @@ -438,6 +438,10 @@ ppc_pgd_vtop(ulong *pgd, ulong vaddr,
>>>> physaddr_t
>>>> *paddr, int verbose)
>>>>
>>>> *paddr = PAGEBASE(pte) + PAGEOFFSET(vaddr);
>>>>
>>>> + if (*paddr> machdep->memsize)
>>>> + /* We don't have pages above System RAM */
>>>> + return FALSE;
>>>> +
>>>> return TRUE;
>>>>
>>>> no_page:
>>>>
>>>> I prefer the (1). What do you think ?
>>>
>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>
>>> Hmmm -- with respect to (1), I suppose that would work, although
>>> given that both x86 and x86_64 pass through
>>> dump_mem_map_SPARSEMEM()
>>> without printing the header in a non-existent-page case, I don't
>>> understand why ppc is different?
>> Yep, I digged into that a little, but not deep enough to debug it
>> with
>> a dump. Nothing was evident from the code :(.
>
> Right -- I tried debugging it from the x86 and x86_64 perspective,
> and couldn't see why ppc would be different! ;-)
Ah, well, I was talking about the x86_64 dump.
I could explain the PPC side of affairs :-). We have page the
following
flags set for the page(with the actual PPC44x page flags support) :
VIRTUAL PHYSICAL
d1002000 20ec00000
PAGE DIRECTORY: c0578000
PGD: c0579a20 => c784b000
PMD: c784b000 => c784b010
PTE: c784b010 => 20ec0051b
PAGE: 20ec00000
PTE PHYSICAL FLAGS
20ec0051b 20ec00000 (PRESENT|RW|GUARDED|NO_CACHE|DIRTY|ACCESSED)
So the page is 'present', but there is no page descriptor associated
with it.
Hence dump_mem_map() would still be called and hence the problem.
Why doesn't it get called in x86_64 case even when the flags indicate
page 'PRESENT' ?
I don't know -- that's what I was asking! But I'd like to prevent it
in all cases with the patch to do_vtop().
Dave