RE: CONFIG_IA64_SPLIT_CACHE was: [Xen-ia64-devel] Console problem on domU on tip?

["Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>]

Oops!  Sorry!  Fixed and committed. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xu, Anthony [mailto:anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:01 PM
> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins); Yang, Fred; 
> Tian, Kevin; xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: CONFIG_IA64_SPLIT_CACHE was: [Xen-ia64-devel] 
> Console problem on domU on tip?
> 
> Dan,
> Progress argument must be initialized to 0 in function 
> sync_split_caches.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Anthony
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) 
> [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx]
> >Sent: 2005å12æ29æ 7:09
> >To: Yang, Fred; Xu, Anthony; Tian, Kevin; 
> xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: CONFIG_IA64_SPLIT_CACHE was: [Xen-ia64-devel] 
> Console problem on
> >domU on tip?
> >
> >Excellent!  So now we understand the root cause?  It
> >is a bug in Linux code which is old (using an outdated
> >SDM) and unused!  Perhaps you should submit a patch to
> >linux-ia64 as well?
> >
> >I still think it is useful to only call the sync code
> >on machines where it is necessary but will apply
> >Anthony's patch on top of the dynamic checking patch
> >(probably later this week).
> >
> >Thanks!
> >Dan
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yang, Fred [mailto:fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:35 PM
> >> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins); Xu, Anthony;
> >> Tian, Kevin; xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: CONFIG_IA64_SPLIT_CACHE was: [Xen-ia64-devel]
> >> Console problem on domU on tip?
> >>
> >> Dan,
> >>
> >> You can goto
> >> http://developer.intel.com/design/itanium/manuals/iiasdmanual.
> >> htm to download new SDM.  The psr.ic=1 in calling PAL had
> >> been implemented into PAL since 2002, so is HP's PAL.
> >>
> >> The correct way is to run with PSR.ic=1 and let TLB miss
> >> handler code to handle Dside miss.
> >>
> >> Please refer to section 11.9.2.1.3 Making PAL Procedure Calls
> >> in Physical or Virtual Mode in SDM Volume#2.  It specifically
> >> called out "with psr.ic=1 to handle any TLB faults that could
> >> occur" in the spec
> >>
> >> So, Anthony's psr.ic=1 patch is still valid since Xen only
> >> maps PAL with ITR not DTR
> >>
> >> -Fred
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote:
> >> > Just working for a brief time today...
> >> >
> >> > I just committed a fix that changes the compile-time CONFIG
> >> > to a run-time test.  Please verify that this runtime test
> >> > works on the future processor.
> >> >
> >> > Anthony, Fred -- If PAL code were not pinned, we would not
> >> > get a nested DTLB miss.
> >> >
> >> > Kevin, Anthony -- The SDM description of the PAL_CACHE_FLUSH
> >> > call states that psr.ic must be turned off for this call.
> >> > (Note that my SDM is quite old so this may have changed
> >> > in subsequent revisions.)
> >> >
> >> > Dan
> >>
> >>
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel