search for: __supported_pte_mask

Hi, 2.6.29-rc3 x86_64 guest on x86_64 RHEL5.3 host: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/484295 kernel BUG at mm/filemap.c:123! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC last sysfs file: /sys/devices/vbd-51712/block/xvda/xvda2/dev CPU 0 Modules linked in: ipv6 xts lrw gf128mul sha256_generic cbc dm_crypt

...8 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c index 12eb07b..4172af8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c @@ -1141,7 +1141,9 @@ asmlinkage void __init xen_start_kernel(void) /* Prevent unwanted bits from being set in PTEs. */ __supported_pte_mask &= ~_PAGE_GLOBAL; +#if 0 if (!xen_initial_domain()) +#endif __supported_pte_mask &= ~(_PAGE_PWT | _PAGE_PCD); __supported_pte_mask |= _PAGE_IOMAP; @@ -1204,10 +1206,6 @@ asmlinkage void __init xen_start_kernel(void) pgd = (pgd_t *)xen_start_info->pt_base; - if (!xen_initia...

netfront requires the symbol __supported_pte_mask when PAE is enabled in the kernel being built for. That symbol, however, isn''t being exported, and it doesn''t seem likely that mainline would want to see this get exported (after all, the general assumption is that the page table handling inline functions and macros are supposed t...

...T)) /* FIXME: is this right? */ @@ -247,11 +258,11 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_bad(pmd_ static inline pte_t pfn_pte(unsigned long page_nr, pgprot_t pgprot) { - pte_t pte; - pte_val(pte) = (page_nr << PAGE_SHIFT); - pte_val(pte) |= pgprot_val(pgprot); - pte_val(pte) &= __supported_pte_mask; - return pte; + unsigned long pte; + pte = (page_nr << PAGE_SHIFT); + pte |= pgprot_val(pgprot); + pte &= __supported_pte_mask; + return __pte(pte); } /* @@ -345,7 +356,6 @@ static inline int pmd_large(pmd_t pte) { pmd_index(address)) #define pmd_none(x) (!pmd_val(x)) #define p...

...T)) /* FIXME: is this right? */ @@ -247,11 +258,11 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_bad(pmd_ static inline pte_t pfn_pte(unsigned long page_nr, pgprot_t pgprot) { - pte_t pte; - pte_val(pte) = (page_nr << PAGE_SHIFT); - pte_val(pte) |= pgprot_val(pgprot); - pte_val(pte) &= __supported_pte_mask; - return pte; + unsigned long pte; + pte = (page_nr << PAGE_SHIFT); + pte |= pgprot_val(pgprot); + pte &= __supported_pte_mask; + return __pte(pte); } /* @@ -345,7 +356,6 @@ static inline int pmd_large(pmd_t pte) { pmd_index(address)) #define pmd_none(x) (!pmd_val(x)) #define p...

...tuff until we have a + possible map and a non-dummy shared_info. */ + per_cpu(xen_vcpu, 0) = &HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[0]; + xen_init_irq_ops(); xen_init_cpuid_mask(); @@ -1207,9 +1211,6 @@ asmlinkage void __init xen_start_kernel(void) __supported_pte_mask &= ~(_PAGE_PWT | _PAGE_PCD); __supported_pte_mask |= _PAGE_IOMAP; - /* Don''t do the full vcpu_info placement stuff until we have a - possible map and a non-dummy shared_info. */ - per_cpu(xen_vcpu, 0) = &HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[0];...

Right now, I have lguest in-tree module compiling on x86_64. It's not yet on a sendable state, since the module itself isn't loading. However, this subset of the series is pretty straightforward, and I'm sending it now aiming at reducing the delta size in the future ;-) Have fun,

Right now, I have lguest in-tree module compiling on x86_64. It's not yet on a sendable state, since the module itself isn't loading. However, this subset of the series is pretty straightforward, and I'm sending it now aiming at reducing the delta size in the future ;-) Have fun,

Hey folks, This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat, uh? This is the majority of the work. The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail miserably ;-) (and it was not yet

Hey folks, This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat, uh? This is the majority of the work. The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail miserably ;-) (and it was not yet

Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch. If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more! There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here are the causes: * split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi: - Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is not worthwhile. So, although we do

Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch. If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more! There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here are the causes: * split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi: - Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is not worthwhile. So, although we do

Hey folks, Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series. We didn't get that many comments from the last time, so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya! >From the last version, the most notable changes are: * consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering concerns * consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing

Hey folks, Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series. We didn't get that many comments from the last time, so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya! >From the last version, the most notable changes are: * consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering concerns * consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing

This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch. >From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm. Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...) Andrew, could you please push it

This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch. >From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm. Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...) Andrew, could you please push it

...r, and it can fix other places (that are using the attrributes > > derived from __PAGE_KERNEL). But the former one is cleaner to me. If > > people agree, I can make such a patch. > > How does native x86/64 Linux avoid this problem? It doesn''t mask > __PAGE_KERNEL with __supported_pte_mask, so I''m reluctant to take this > patch. Seems to me there is some other underlying difference between us > and native that is not best solved by diverging even further. > > Unless native doesn;t boot on these failing boxes either? > > -- Keir > > > ________...

...E_NX); } static inline int pte_special(pte_t pte) @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ return __pgprot(preservebits | addbits); } -#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_val(x) & ~PTE_MASK) +#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x) & ~PTE_MASK) #define canon_pgprot(p) __pgprot(pgprot_val(p) & __supported_pte_mask)

...E_NX); } static inline int pte_special(pte_t pte) @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ return __pgprot(preservebits | addbits); } -#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_val(x) & ~PTE_MASK) +#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x) & ~PTE_MASK) #define canon_pgprot(p) __pgprot(pgprot_val(p) & __supported_pte_mask)

...T)) /* FIXME: is this right? */ @@ -247,11 +256,11 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_bad(pmd_ static inline pte_t pfn_pte(unsigned long page_nr, pgprot_t pgprot) { - pte_t pte; - pte_val(pte) = (page_nr << PAGE_SHIFT); - pte_val(pte) |= pgprot_val(pgprot); - pte_val(pte) &= __supported_pte_mask; - return pte; + unsigned long pte; + pte = (page_nr << PAGE_SHIFT); + pte |= pgprot_val(pgprot); + pte &= __supported_pte_mask; + return __pte(pte); } /* @@ -345,7 +354,6 @@ static inline int pmd_large(pmd_t pte) { pmd_index(address)) #define pmd_none(x) (!pmd_val(x)) #define p...