Re: Missing operand for tlbie instruction on Power7

[Michael Ellerman]

On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 10:31 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 02:19 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:00:49PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> > > It's also worth noting that the __flush_power7 uses tlbiel instead of tlbie.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah that's a good point. It's not clear if the swsusp code wants to a local or
> >> > a global invalidate.
> >>
> >> If I read the code right, this is called on the boot CPU when all the
> >> non-boot CPUs are still (potentially) down, so if you would do a global
> >> invalidate the non-boot CPUs might not even notice, so those need to do
> >> a (local) invalidate after being brought up anyway?  Or they probably
> >> need it before being brought down at all?  You figure it out, it makes
> >> my brain hurt :-)
> >
> > A good rule would be that every cpu does a local invalidate before turning on
> > the MMU. That would work for this case and also for kexec, kdump, junk left by
> > firmare etc. But I don't think we do that consistently in a way that works for
> > this code at the moment.
> >
> >> > As an alternative, can you try adding a .machine push / .machine "power4" /
> >> > .machine pop, around the tlbie. That should tell the assembler to drop back to
> >> > power4 mode for that instruction, which should then do the right thing. There
> >> > are some examples in that file.
> >>
> >> That will get the assembler to not complain, but it will assemble the wrong
> >> instruction: the power7 instruction has the same opcode (but different
> >> semantics).  So if you assemble a "tlbie r4" in power4 mode, a newer CPU
> >> will see it as a "tlbie r4,r0" and do the wrong thing.
> >
> > Yeah, it would basically maintain the existing behaviour which is wrong but a
> > known quantity. I suspect no one has ever run this on Power7 or in fact
> > anything other than G5 or Book3E.
> 
> Likely not, but leaving it broken just because it is known behavior
> seems pretty weird to me.

In a universe where I have infinite time to fix random things we would
obviously do a proper fix :)

> I think Fedora will look at simply disabling hibernation on ppc64 so the file
> isn't built at all.  Seems to be a safer option.

It's safer for sure. Though you might have some G5 users who are using it and
notice it being disabled.

cheers


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/