Re: Missing operand for tlbie instruction on Power7

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

The 5 of them will notice it being disabled and then they'll realize
they either get a working kernel minus hibernation, or they get no
kernel at all because it doesn't compile.

josh
--
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/