From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 1 09:06:25 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:06:16 -0800 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:19975 "EHLO sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:06:08 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id JAA00617; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:09:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA65150 for linux-list; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:43:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id IAA66574 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:43:14 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jharrell@ti.com) Received: from gatekeep.ti.com (gatekeep.ti.com [192.94.94.61]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id IAA02852 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:43:13 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jharrell@ti.com) Received: from dlep6.itg.ti.com ([157.170.188.9]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05495 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:43:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from dlep6.itg.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep6.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17154 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:43:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from dlep4.itg.ti.com (dlep4.itg.ti.com [157.170.188.63]) by dlep6.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17133 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:43:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from ti.com (IDENT:jharrell@pcp97780pcs.sc.ti.com [158.218.100.100]) by dlep4.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09445 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:43:10 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38970DA5.165EDA0F@ti.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 09:45:25 -0700 From: Jeff Harrell X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sgi-mips Subject: Question concerning memory configuration variables Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing I have been looking at 2.2.23 and noticed that a few things concerning memory paging has changed. I wonder if anybody could give me a definition of a couple of the variables that are defined. The first is the max_low_pfn variable. It looks like the first time that I see this called is during the paging_init() function and passed to free_area_init(). The memory map size is determined from this variable. It memory map will extend to the end of physical memory (what used to be mips_memory_ upper). Do I determine the max_low_pfn by calculating the available memory and subtract the size of the kernel? How does the variable "start" play into this equation? Are they the same? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jeff Harrell Work: (801) 619-6104 Broadband Access group/TI jharrell@ti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 1 16:25:22 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:25:12 -0800 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:23340 "EHLO sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:25:00 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA07588; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:28:01 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA11327 for linux-list; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:17:13 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA92085 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:17:11 -0800 (PST) mail_from (MMartin@Consorta.com) Received: from mercury.consorta.com (mail.consorta.com [12.19.168.147]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA09996 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:17:10 -0800 (PST) mail_from (MMartin@Consorta.com) Received: by mercury.consorta.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:17:07 -0600 Message-ID: <5765516FA06ED211881200A0C9D91D95888867@mercury.consorta.com> From: "Martin, Mark" To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Fishing for help on Challenge-S support Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:17:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ok, I'll try these questions one at a time (#^) ec3 support on the Challenge-S? If someone has the specs, or the name or email of someone in SGI interested in offering the required information, I'd be happy to have a try at it trying to get support for it in... Thanks, Mark Martin mmartin@consorta.com From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 1 17:30:22 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:30:12 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:8797 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:29:56 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id RAA28937; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:28:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA52656 for linux-list; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:18:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA50954 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:18:27 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id RAA08705 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:18:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-13.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-13.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.13]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25946; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:17:45 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:17:01 +0100 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:17:01 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Jeff Harrell Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Question concerning memory configuration variables Message-ID: <20000202021701.A22003@uni-koblenz.de> References: <38970DA5.165EDA0F@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38970DA5.165EDA0F@ti.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 09:45:25AM -0700, Jeff Harrell wrote: > I have been looking at 2.2.23 and noticed that a few things concerning > memory paging has changed. I wonder if anybody could give me a definition > of a couple of the variables that are defined. The first is the > max_low_pfn variable. It looks like the first time that I see this called > is during the paging_init() function and passed to free_area_init(). The > memory map size is determined from this variable. It memory map will > extend to the end of physical memory (what used to be mips_memory_ upper). > Do I determine the max_low_pfn by calculating the available memory and > subtract the size of the kernel? How does the variable "start" play into > this equation? Are they the same? Any help would be greatly appreciated. The max_low_pfn variable is the number of `normal' memory pages. Normal as opposed to high memory which we don't currently don't support on MIPS. That is for contiguous memory starting at physical address zero it's value equals available_memory / PAGE_SIZE. The value of max_low_pfn is set by a call to init_bootmem. A typical setup could look like below. Mb in this example is the number of available megabytes of memory. You may simplify this somewhat more, it's derived from the Origin code. free_start = PFN_ALIGN(&_end) - PAGE_OFFSET; free_end = PAGE_OFFSET + (mb << 20); start_pfn = PFN_UP((unsigned long)&_end - PAGE_OFFSET); /* Register all the contiguous memory with the bootmem allocator and free it. Be careful about the bootmem freemap. */ bootmap_size = init_bootmem(start_pfn, mb << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT)); /* Free the entire available memory after the _end symbol. */ free_bootmem(__pa(free_start), (mb << 20) - __pa(free_start)); /* We also did free the memory where the bootmap is stored, reserve it again. */ reserve_bootmem(__pa(free_start), bootmap_size); printk("Found %ldmb of memory.\n", mb); Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 3 19:59:24 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:59:15 -0800 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:46955 "EHLO sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:58:50 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id LAA07353; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:53:39 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id LAA65899 for linux-list; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:30:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA33307 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:30:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA15243 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:30:47 -0800 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:30:47 -0800 Message-Id: <200002021930.LAA15243@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Eliseu Filho To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com cc: eliseu@cos.ufrj.br Subject: sources of 2.2.1-990526 (fwd) Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing ----------------------------------------------------------- I apologize if multiple copies of this mail are received ----------------------------------------------------------- Hello I tried to run the pre-compiled vmlinux-indy-2.2.1-990226 kernel on a SGI Indy (R4600 Rev. 00002020 processor with PROMLIB SGI ARCS Ver. 1 Rev. 10) but it has not worked (the INIT process does not start). I compiled its source locally, but it did not work either (same problem). However, the pre-compiled vmlinux-indy-sound-2.2.1-990526 runs perfectly. 1. What is the difference between vmlinux-indy-2.2.1-990226 and vmlinux-indy-sound-2.2.1-990526? 2. Where can I find the sources of vmlinux-indy-sound-2.2.1-990526? Or, is there any patch to upgrade from 2.2.1-990226 to it? I looked at ftp.linux.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/src/kernel/v2.2, but it is empty. Also, ftp.linux.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/test contains only the sources of 2.2.1-990226. I need the sources of a working kernel in order to introduce some instrumentation, necessary for my research. So, I really would appreciate any help regarding this. Thanks in advance. Regards Eliseu M. C. Filho ------------------------------------------------------- Eliseu M. Chaves Filho, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Systems and Computer Engineering Federal University of Rio de Janeiro P.O. Box 68511 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Phone: +55 21 590-2552 ext. 245 (voice) +55 21 290-6626 (fax) e-mail: eliseu@cos.ufrj.br, efilho@ece.uci.edu Web: http://www.cos.ufrj.br, http://www.eng.uci.edu/morphosys From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 4 01:30:17 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:30:08 -0800 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:62566 "EHLO sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:29:44 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id RAA03914; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:24:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA58570 for linux-list; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:10:59 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA60366 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:10:57 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id RAA07103 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:10:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-17.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-17.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.17]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20314; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:10:49 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:10:18 +0100 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:10:18 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000203021018.A25786@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Today I exchanged the R5000 CPU module in my Indy against a R4600 module and found that on R4600SC the kernel runs reliable while it crashs pretty soon after booting on a R5000SC module. This is consistent with the reports that I've looked at. I'd appreciate some more reports from people who did upgrade from a kernel older than 2.3.11 to 2.3.11 or newer. Do you experience crashes with the newer kernel? What type of CPU are you using? Thanks, Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 4 03:55:08 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 03:54:58 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:42621 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 03:54:38 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id TAA16289; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:45:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id TAA86294 for linux-list; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:35:08 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id TAA85676 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:35:04 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kenwills@mailbag.com) Received: from glacier.binc.net (glacier.binc.net [205.173.176.10]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id TAA05973 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:35:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kenwills@mailbag.com) Received: from spanky.yaberk.int (msn-1-136.x2.binc.net [198.70.31.136]) by glacier.binc.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA14011; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:35:01 -0600 Received: (from kenwills@localhost) by spanky.yaberk.int (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01338; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:35:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from kenwills@mailbag.com) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:35:54 -0600 From: Ken Wills To: Ralf Baechle Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000202213554.C1242@spanky.yaberk.int> References: <20000203021018.A25786@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre1i In-Reply-To: <20000203021018.A25786@uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: Mutt http://www.mutt.org/ Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing This is from an Indy running 2.3.21. I've had no stability problems, but the machine isn't doing much yet. [root@boger /proc]# cat cpuinfo cpu : MIPS cpu model : R4600 V2.0 system type : SGI Indy BogoMIPS : 133.12 byteorder : big endian unaligned accesses : 0 wait instruction : yes microsecond timers : no extra interrupt vector : no hardware watchpoint : no VCED exceptions : not available VCEI exceptions : not available [root@boger /proc]# [root@boger /proc]# uname -a Linux boger.yaberk.int 2.3.21 #2 Sun Jan 16 02:02:46 CST 2000 mips unknown * Ralf Baechle (ralf@oss.sgi.com) [000202 21:22]: > Today I exchanged the R5000 CPU module in my Indy against a R4600 module > and found that on R4600SC the kernel runs reliable while it crashs pretty > soon after booting on a R5000SC module. This is consistent with the > reports that I've looked at. > > I'd appreciate some more reports from people who did upgrade from a > kernel older than 2.3.11 to 2.3.11 or newer. Do you experience crashes > with the newer kernel? What type of CPU are you using? > > Thanks, > > Ralf -- Ken Ken Wills kenwills@mailbag.com From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 4 04:37:47 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 04:37:38 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:17534 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 04:37:20 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id UAA06767; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:34:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id UAA38623 for linux-list; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:17:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id UAA45127 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:16:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (dubrawsk@nyquist.ece.uiuc.edu) Received: from nyquist.ece.uiuc.edu (nyquist.ece.uiuc.edu [128.174.115.195]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id UAA01521 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:16:57 -0800 (PST) mail_from (dubrawsk@nyquist.ece.uiuc.edu) Received: from nyquist.ece.uiuc.edu (IDENT:dubrawsk@nyquist.ece.uiuc.edu [128.174.115.195]) by nyquist.ece.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA26225 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:52:30 -0600 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:52:30 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Dubrawsk To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Howto compile kernel on indy Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Hello I have tried repeatedly to compile both the 2.1.100 and 2.2.1 kernel trees on an Indy with the hardhat installation. I had to manually remove the ${CROSS_COMPILE} directives in the Makefile on the 2.2.1 tree since it was defaulting to cross compiling otherwise. My questions are: 1. Is it possible to natively compile a kernel on an indy running linux, or must it be cross compiled on another machine? 2. What ever happenned to rdev. According to the linux-utils package it should have been installed in /usr/sbin, and it is noticably missing? 3. Where can I find updated ports of the basic tools like compiler and libraries? >From the messages I receive in this list, I know people are working on this project, and I would like to provide some input, but without some basic tools that work it is difficult to start. Thank you Richard Dubrawski University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (web page: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~dubrawsk/) From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 4 09:09:28 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:09:18 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:12820 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:09:02 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id BAA00153; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:06:35 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id AAA10653 for linux-list; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:46:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from calypso.engr.sgi.com (calypso.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.113]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id AAA00686; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:46:46 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ulfc@engr.sgi.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calypso.engr.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72A610508C; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:45:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:45:20 -0800 (PST) From: Ulf Carlsson To: Eliseu Filho Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, eliseu@cos.ufrj.br Subject: Re: sources of 2.2.1-990526 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200002021930.LAA15243@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing > I tried to run the pre-compiled vmlinux-indy-2.2.1-990226 kernel > on a SGI Indy (R4600 Rev. 00002020 processor with PROMLIB SGI ARCS > Ver. 1 Rev. 10) but it has not worked (the INIT process does not > start). I compiled its source locally, but it did not work either > (same problem). However, the pre-compiled vmlinux-indy-sound-2.2.1-990526 > runs perfectly. > > 1. What is the difference between vmlinux-indy-2.2.1-990226 and > vmlinux-indy-sound-2.2.1-990526? The vmlinux-indy-sound is a kernel that's compiled with sound support, vmlinux-indy doesn't have sound support. Of course the changes that have been made to the CVS tree in between make the kernels different as well. > 2. Where can I find the sources of vmlinux-indy-sound-2.2.1-990526? > Or, is there any patch to upgrade from 2.2.1-990226 to it? I looked > at ftp.linux.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/src/kernel/v2.2, but it is empty. > Also, ftp.linux.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/test contains only the > sources of 2.2.1-990226. I doubt there is a tar ball of the source for vmlinux-indy-sound-2.2.1-990526, but you can however check out the CVS directory as it was 990526. Try something like: cvs -d ':pserver:cvs@oss.sgi.com:/home/pub/cvs' co -D 990526 linux > I need the sources of a working kernel in order to introduce some > instrumentation, necessary for my research. So, I really would > appreciate any help regarding this. Thanks in advance. Good luck! Ulf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 4 23:01:41 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:01:22 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:58470 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:01:10 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA28262; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:51:39 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA85876 for linux-list; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:42:34 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA28191 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:42:31 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id OAA03248 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:42:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-20.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-20.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.20]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08463; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 23:42:23 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 23:21:02 +0100 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 23:21:02 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Richard Dubrawsk Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Howto compile kernel on indy Message-ID: <20000203232102.D2999@uni-koblenz.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 10:52:30PM -0600, Richard Dubrawsk wrote: > I have tried repeatedly to compile both the 2.1.100 and 2.2.1 kernel trees > on an Indy with the hardhat installation. I had to manually remove the > ${CROSS_COMPILE} directives in the Makefile on the 2.2.1 tree since it was > defaulting to cross compiling otherwise. My questions are: Cross compilation is a configuration option near the end of the configuration dialog. So no hacking of makefiles required. > 1. Is it possible to natively compile a kernel on an indy running linux, > or must it be cross compiled on another machine? It is possible, however most of us Indy hackers consider it inconvenient to reboot the machine on which we're doing the development. This is the core reason why I almost never do native kernel builds. > 2. What ever happenned to rdev. According to the linux-utils package it > should have been installed in /usr/sbin, and it is noticably missing? Rdev is only required on i386. On the Indy use command line arguments at the firmware like ``vmlinux root=/dev/sdc1''. > 3. Where can I find updated ports of the basic tools like compiler and > libraries? Updates versions are on oss.sgi.com. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 4 16:40:27 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:39:55 -0800 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:7513 "EHLO sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:52:45 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id GAA08242; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:52:42 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id GAA18372 for linux-list; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:43:09 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id GAA64916 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:43:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (dubrawsk@valhalla.csl.uiuc.edu) Received: from valhalla.csl.uiuc.edu (valhalla.csl.uiuc.edu [130.126.137.170]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id GAA02846 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:43:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (dubrawsk@valhalla.csl.uiuc.edu) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by valhalla.csl.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.8.7) id IAA13172; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:43:31 -0600 From: Richard Dubrawski To: Ralf Baechle , Richard Dubrawsk Subject: Re: Howto compile kernel on indy Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:22:49 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com References: <20000203232102.D2999@uni-koblenz.de> In-Reply-To: <20000203232102.D2999@uni-koblenz.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00020408433103.11197@valhalla.csl.uiuc.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Thanks for the information. regarding the use of command line arguments then, I really want to make this machine boot unattended. Is it possible to have the indy boot rom automatically execute the "vmlinux root=/dev/sda3" line, and if so how do I make it do that? Thank you On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 10:52:30PM -0600, Richard Dubrawsk wrote: > > > I have tried repeatedly to compile both the 2.1.100 and 2.2.1 kernel trees > > on an Indy with the hardhat installation. I had to manually remove the > > ${CROSS_COMPILE} directives in the Makefile on the 2.2.1 tree since it was > > defaulting to cross compiling otherwise. My questions are: > > Cross compilation is a configuration option near the end of the > configuration dialog. So no hacking of makefiles required. > > > 1. Is it possible to natively compile a kernel on an indy running linux, > > or must it be cross compiled on another machine? > > It is possible, however most of us Indy hackers consider it inconvenient > to reboot the machine on which we're doing the development. This is the > core reason why I almost never do native kernel builds. > > > 2. What ever happenned to rdev. According to the linux-utils package it > > should have been installed in /usr/sbin, and it is noticably missing? > > Rdev is only required on i386. On the Indy use command line arguments at > the firmware like ``vmlinux root=/dev/sdc1''. > > > 3. Where can I find updated ports of the basic tools like compiler and > > libraries? > > Updates versions are on oss.sgi.com. > > Ralf -- Richard Dubrawski University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (web page: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~dubrawsk/) From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 8 23:05:13 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:05:04 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:42256 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:04:43 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id XAA18190; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:00:13 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id WAA05604 for linux-list; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:37:29 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id WAA08954 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:37:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (godwinchan@hotmail.com) Received: from hotmail.com (oe14.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.118] (may be forged)) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id WAA01048 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:37:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (godwinchan@hotmail.com) Received: (qmail 10798 invoked by uid 65534); 9 Feb 2000 06:36:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20000209063649.10797.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [24.113.4.86] Reply-To: "godwin" From: "godwin" To: Subject: A new MIPS/SGI webpage.. Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:36:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.5600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.5600 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Hi all.. I have been lurking on the mailing list for a long time. I was figuring out what I was going to do.. so I made a webpage on MIPS/SGI Linux It is on http://www.orcawerks.com/sgi/irix/linux.html I hope I get the specs right.. that is the Xserver is only runs on XL series graphics on Indy right now? I just want it to make it a quick fact sheet so not many people would ask.. would linux work on my Personal Iris. I will put up a visual guide to install Indy in a couple of days.. Thanks.. Godwin From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 9 12:48:17 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:47:58 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:29263 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:47:49 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id MAA04508; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:50:33 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id MAA46461 for linux-list; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:34:41 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id MAA71603 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:34:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jharrell@ti.com) Received: from gatekeep.ti.com (gatekeep.ti.com [192.94.94.61]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id MAA07445 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:33:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jharrell@ti.com) Received: from dlep7.itg.ti.com ([157.170.134.103]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08445; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:32:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from dlep7.itg.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep7.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21227; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:32:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from dlep4.itg.ti.com (dlep4.itg.ti.com [157.170.188.63]) by dlep7.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21216; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:32:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from ti.com (IDENT:jharrell@pcp97780pcs.sc.ti.com [158.218.100.100]) by dlep4.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22208; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:32:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38A1CFAE.EFA429BA@ti.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:35:58 -0700 From: Jeff Harrell X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sgi-mips , linux-mips , linux-mips Subject: Question concerning memory initialization (4M->64M) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0BB6A84381EA7F784BD03864" Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing --------------0BB6A84381EA7F784BD03864 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have run into an interesting problem and would like to run it past this newsgroup to see if anyone has any experience in these areas. I am running kernel 2.3.22 and have upgraded my memory space from ~4M (0x400000) to ~64M (0x4000000). I run the 4M version of the kernel and have no problems but when I run the 64M version, I run into problems during the mem_init() portion of the code. Specifically during the free_page(tmp) call during the determination of totalram, codepages and datapages. It looks like it is failing during the call to remove_mem_queue() within free_pages_ok(). I am seeing the next->prev and prev->next set to 0 causing a page fault. Is there anything that anyone is aware of that I would need to change (beyond mips_memory_upper) that would enable me to increase available memory to 64M. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Jeff Additional information: ------------------ high memory: 0x83fff000 start memory: 0x80433000 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jeff Harrell Work: (801) 619-6104 Broadband Access group/TI jharrell@ti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --------------0BB6A84381EA7F784BD03864 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  
I have run into an interesting problem and would like to run it past this newsgroup
to see if anyone has any experience in these areas.  I am running kernel 2.3.22 and
have upgraded my memory space from ~4M (0x400000) to ~64M (0x4000000).  I run the 4M
version of the kernel and have no problems but when I run the 64M version, I run
into problems during the mem_init() portion of the code.  Specifically during the
free_page(tmp) call during the determination of totalram, codepages and datapages.
It looks like it is failing during the call to remove_mem_queue() within free_pages_ok().
I am seeing the next->prev and prev->next  set to 0 causing a page fault.   Is there
anything that anyone is aware of that I would need to change (beyond mips_memory_upper)
that would enable me to increase available memory to 64M.  Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Jeff

Additional information:
------------------

high memory: 0x83fff000  start memory: 0x80433000 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Harrell                    Work:  (801) 619-6104 
Broadband Access group/TI       
jharrell@ti.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

  --------------0BB6A84381EA7F784BD03864-- From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 9 19:54:12 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:54:02 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:51070 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:53:42 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id TAA02448; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:56:27 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id TAA00098 for linux-list; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:37:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id TAA93597 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:37:00 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jgentry@swcp.com) Received: from taka.swcp.com (taka.swcp.com [198.59.115.12]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id TAA04319 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:36:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jgentry@swcp.com) Received: from swcp.com (dpm7-16.swcp.com [204.134.12.80]) by taka.swcp.com (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) with ESMTP id e1A3awU62630; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 20:36:58 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38A2157E.E30EDA2C@swcp.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 20:33:50 -0500 From: Josh Gentry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, jhart@tvi.cc.nm.us Subject: SGI/MIPS Linux Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Folks, I am a student at a community college. Our networking lab is slated to receive some SGI servers as donations. I have not been able to find out the model of server, but I am sure it is a server, not a workstation. We desperately want to run Linux (or any of the free BSD distributions) on these machines. My digging has turned up Linux/MIPS ports that say they run on certain processors. I do not know if that means they will run on these SGI machines if they have those processors, etc. I just not knowledgeable enough about the way operating systems work to know if that is the case. Also, I have found that there is a port to the SGI Indy machines, but those seem to be workstations, so not what we will be getting. My question is, is there likely a port that we can run on these SGI servers? If a port does not specify that it runs on SGI machines, what do we have to look for to determine if it will? Thank you for any advice. Josh -- Josh jgentry@swcp.com Linux Dialin Server Setup Guide, http://www.swcp.com/~jgentry/pers.html From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 10 02:35:20 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:35:11 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:12908 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:34:53 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id CAA27082; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:30:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id CAA68783 for linux-list; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:14:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id CAA74197 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:13:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id CAA06649 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:13:57 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id CAA01307; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:13:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id CAA06439; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:13:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00bc01bf73af$c7b19bc0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Gleb O. Raiko" Cc: , Subject: Re: Enhanced 2.2.12 MIPS Kernel Sources Available Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:15:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >"Kevin D. Kissell" wrote: >> >> This code is NOT a supported product of MIPS >> Technologies Inc. It is being made available on an >> "as is" basis subject to the ususal GPL. It should be >> accessible via anonymous (and blind) FTP for a while at >> ftp://ftp.mips.com/incoming/linux.mips.src.01.01.tar.gz >> and is archived on the Paralogos MIPS/Linux web site at >> http://www.paralogos.com/mipslinux/. We'd be very interested >> in any feedback, experimental results, and enhancements >> that any of you may wish to provide, and I will answer >> email questions to the extent that my time allows. >> > >It'll be great if you would put just patches too. I guess, it'll be easy >for us to look through set of patches instead of downloading entire >2.2.12 and making diff -ruN on it. Then, there might be a core patch >that decribes changes in machine independent part of the kernel and the >rest might cover specific boards. Most of developers here will be >interested in the core patch, I guess. > >Regards, >Gleb. The thought had certainly occurred to me to generate the patch relative to the 2.2.12 baseline - it would certainly be more compact than the whole source tree! I'll try and find the time to do so, but it probably won't be any time this week... From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 10 05:32:22 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:32:03 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:56867 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:31:39 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id FAA07610; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:34:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id FAA02480 for linux-list; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:16:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id FAA96731 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:16:04 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id FAA05141 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:16:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id FAA04130; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id FAA09715; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:15:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00d801bf73c9$32d3b820$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" , , Subject: FPU Emulator (Re: Enhanced 2.2.12 MIPS Kernel Sources Available) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:06:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Hey, one reason I wanted to get the code out there ASAP was to allow someone to do just that! The bulk of the emulator lives in its own directory, arch/mips/fpu_emulator, and the arch/mips/kernel/traps.c hook is very simple. There are, however, hooks that need to be put into context switch, kgdb, and signal support code here and there, and these key off some enhancements we made to the CPU configuration code (e.g., there is a mips_cpu data structure with an options field that indicates the presence or absence of an FPU at runtime). In theory, the emulator is capable of executing kernel FPU instructions and register register references as well as those from user mode, but it's considerably more efficient if the kernel knows to reference the simulator state instead. The work to merge all this into the SGI 2.3.xx tree should not be too daunting, but it's not something that MIPS is likely to take on internally any time soon. Regards, Kevin K. -----Original Message----- From: Bradley D. LaRonde To: Kevin D. Kissell ; linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com ; linux-mips@fnet.fr Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:06 AM Subject: Re: Enhanced 2.2.12 MIPS Kernel Sources Available >RFC: What about geting the same FPU emulation into SGI's tree? > >Regards, >Brad > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kevin D. Kissell" >To: ; >Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 5:27 PM >Subject: Enhanced 2.2.12 MIPS Kernel Sources Available > > >> As many of you will have inferred, MIPS Technologies Inc >> has been working on the MIPS/Linux kernel for the past >> six months or so, driven by the need for a flexible software >> platform for valdiation and characterisation of new MIPS >> processor designs. Relatively early on, we made the difficult >> decision not to try to track the SGI Linux repository: It was >> too unstable, and the SGI activity is driven by a very >> different set of goals. We therefore took the 2.2.12 >> kernel sources from kernel.org, and worked from there. >> I've shared some of our bug findings and fixes with >> the SGI mailing list, and still more of them with Ralf >> directly, but a lot of other changes and improvements >> have been made that will certainly be of interest to readers >> of this list, particularly those targeting non-SGI platforms. >> >> This kernel supports the new generation of 32-bit MIPS >> CPUs with R4K exception models. This involved fairly >> extensive changes to semaphore support and to TLB >> and cache management routines. We know it works on >> the MIPS 4Kc, and with appropriate additions to the >> table of recognized CPUs in the (revised) CPU probe >> code, it should run on the IDT 323xx, and Toshiba TX49 >> processor families as well. >> >> It includes an integrated FPU emulator that handles >> the full MIPS FP instruction set, and allows FPU-less >> CPUs to run standard MIPS/Linux binaries. >> >> It contains a number of endianness fixes in the kernel >> and driver code, and is very stable in both configurations. >> >> It contains platform support for the Algorithmics P-5064 >> and MIPS "Atlas" development boards, as well as the >> SGI Indy. >> >> This code is NOT a supported product of MIPS >> Technologies Inc. It is being made available on an >> "as is" basis subject to the ususal GPL. It should be >> accessible via anonymous (and blind) FTP for a while at >> ftp://ftp.mips.com/incoming/linux.mips.src.01.01.tar.gz >> and is archived on the Paralogos MIPS/Linux web site at >> http://www.paralogos.com/mipslinux/. We'd be very interested >> in any feedback, experimental results, and enhancements >> that any of you may wish to provide, and I will answer >> email questions to the extent that my time allows. >> >> Regards, >> >> Kevin K. >> __ >> >> Kevin D. Kissell >> MIPS Technologies European Architecture Lab >> kevink@mips.com >> Tel. +33.4.78.38.70.67 >> FAX. +33.4.78.38.70.68 >> > From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 10 06:49:32 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:49:23 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:29736 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:49:07 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id GAA02275; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:51:53 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id GAA92300 for linux-list; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:35:36 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id GAA50974 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:35:31 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id GAA09411 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:35:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id GAA05450; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA10905; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:35:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00f001bf73d4$4b5f21d0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Gleb O. Raiko" Cc: , Subject: Re: Enhanced 2.2.12 MIPS Kernel Sources Available Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:36:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >It'll be great if you would put just patches too. I guess, it'll be easy >for us to look through set of patches instead of downloading entire >2.2.12 and making diff -ruN on it. Then, there might be a core patch >that decribes changes in machine independent part of the kernel and the >rest might cover specific boards. Most of developers here will be >interested in the core patch, I guess. OK, there is now a patch file available on the Paralogos site (http://www.paralogos.com/mipslinux/) with the deltas relative to the kernel.org 2.2.12 distribution. It covers the whole kernel tree - I don't think I can reasonably decompose the changes without introducing a gratuitous opportunity to generate bugs. Happy hacking, Kevin K. __ Kevin D. Kissell MIPS Technologies European Architecture Lab kevink@mips.com Tel. +33.4.78.38.70.67 FAX. +33.4.78.38.70.68 From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 10 08:48:35 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:48:25 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:63541 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:48:13 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id IAA03458; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:50:59 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA11097 for linux-list; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:26:31 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id IAA02341 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:26:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id IAA09142 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:26:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-9.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-9.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.9]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29536; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:25:57 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:15:33 +0100 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:15:33 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Jeff Harrell Cc: sgi-mips , linux-mips , linux-mips Subject: Re: Question concerning memory initialization (4M->64M) Message-ID: <20000210171533.A2933@uni-koblenz.de> References: <38A1CFAE.EFA429BA@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38A1CFAE.EFA429BA@ti.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:35:58PM -0700, Jeff Harrell wrote: > I have run into an interesting problem and would like to run it past this > newsgroup to see if anyone has any experience in these areas. I am > running kernel 2.3.22 and have upgraded my memory space from ~4M > (0x400000) to ~64M (0x4000000). I run the 4M version of the kernel and > have no problems but when I run the 64M version, I run into problems > during the mem_init() portion of the code. Specifically during the > free_page(tmp) call during the determination of totalram, codepages and > datapages. It looks like it is failing during the call to > remove_mem_queue() within free_pages_ok(). I am seeing the next->prev and > prev->next set to 0 causing a page fault. The free pages are being stored in a circular list, so struct page of a free page should never have prev or next set to zero. Smells like memory corruption. > Is there anything that anyone is aware of that I would need to change > (beyond mips_memory_upper) that would enable me to increase available > memory to 64M. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. That alone should be sufficient. > Additional information: > ------------------ > > high memory: 0x83fff000 start memory: 0x80433000 I assume these are the values of start_mem and mem_end as passed to mem_init()? In that case these values look sane. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 11 16:28:31 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:28:21 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:54039 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:28:00 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id QAA03693; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:30:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA90277 for linux-list; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:17:28 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA35941 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:17:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA04422 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:17:13 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-30.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-30.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.30]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11938; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:17:07 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:16:28 +0100 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:16:28 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: 2.2 kernel fixes Message-ID: <20000212011628.A19790@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing I've fixed a number of bugs into the 2.2 branch. At least one of them seems to be significant, so I've put a new kernel binary for the Indy as /pub/linux/mips/test/vmlinux-2.2.13-20000211.tar.bz2 and a new source snapshot on oss.sgi.com. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 07:58:08 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:57:58 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:8526 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:57:34 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id IAA08408; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:00:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id HAA07034 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:35:27 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id HAA72178 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:35:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (carstenl@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id HAA07523 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:35:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (carstenl@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA11763 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from copfs01.mips.com (copfs01 [192.168.205.101]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA12043 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mips.com (copsun17 [192.168.205.27]) by copfs01.mips.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA08067 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:35:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <38A820B1.BA9FD53F@mips.com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:35:13 +0100 From: Carsten Langgaard X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Where can I find the SRPMs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing I haven't been able to locate the SRPMs for the following RPMs: info-3.12-4.mipseb.rpm zlib-devel-1.1.2-2.mipseb.rpm glibc-devel-2.0.6-4.mipseb.rpm Could some one please help me. /Carsten -- _ _ ____ ___ Carsten Langgaard mailto:carstenl@mips.com |\ /|||___)(___ MIPS Denmark Direct: +45 4486 5527 | \/ ||| ____) Lautrupvang 2B Switch: +45 4486 5555 TECHNOLOGIES INC 2750 Ballerup Fax...: +45 4486 5556 Denmark http://www.mips.com From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 10:50:59 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:50:49 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:23145 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:50:36 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id KAA08240; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:53:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA50295 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:38 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA32691 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:36 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13040 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200002141840.KAA13040@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: geert@linux-m68k.org To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: ioremap() broken? Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing in asm-mips/io.h we have: extern inline void * ioremap(unsigned long offset, unsigned long size) { return (void *) KSEG1ADDR(offset); } #define readb(addr) (*(volatile unsigned char *) (0xa0000000 + (unsigned long)(addr))) and in asm-mips/addrspace.h: #define KSEG1 0xa0000000 #define KSEG1ADDR(a) ((__typeof__(a))(((unsigned long)(a) & 0x1fffffff) | KSEG1)) Hence if I map physical address range 0x1fa00300-0x1fa0033f and read from it: mapped = ioremap(0x1fa00300, 0x40); /* returns 0xbfa00300 */ data = readb(mapped+0x20); then this fails miserably with Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 5fa00320 My questions: 1. Is it really necessary to add anything to the addr in the readb() et al. macros? ioremap() already takes care of that. 2. If yes, isn't it better to or (`|') instead of add ('+') 0xa0000000 in the readb() et al. macros (or to use the macro KSEG1ADDR())? FYI, I'm trying to make the UART in the NEC Vrc-5074 hosty bridge work cleanly with serial.c. And serial.c first ioremap()s it. Furthermore I see problems with #define isa_readb(a) readb(a) since ISA I/O space is not at 0xa0000000 but at 0xa6000000 on the NEC DDB Vrc-5074. Don't we need an offset mips_io_mem_base, like is done on most other non-ia32 architectures (cfr. mips_io_port_base for inb() and friends)? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE) Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55 Voice +32-2-7248632 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 10:51:49 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:51:39 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:43881 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:51:36 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id KAA02738; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:54:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA92378 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:05 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA24259 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA12999 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:39:38 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:39:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200002141839.KAA12999@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: geert@linux-m68k.org To: Ralf Baechle cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes In-Reply-To: <20000203021018.A25786@uni-koblenz.de> Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > Today I exchanged the R5000 CPU module in my Indy against a R4600 module > and found that on R4600SC the kernel runs reliable while it crashs pretty > soon after booting on a R5000SC module. This is consistent with the > reports that I've looked at. That could explain the crashes I see on the DDB Vrc-5074 as well, which has a NEC VR5000. I'll try to fix the bootmem stuff ASAP and upgrade to 2.3.38. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE) Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55 Voice +32-2-7248632 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 11:41:19 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:41:10 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:44329 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:40:50 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA27832; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:36:18 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA42996; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA37228 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA89845 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:40:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA13024 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:39:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:39:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200002141839.KAA13024@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: geert@linux-m68k.org To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: -fno-strict-aliasing Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Hi, The test for -fno-strict-aliasing in the main Makefile (cvs 2.3.38): | # use '-fno-strict-aliasing', but only if the compiler can take it | CFLAGS += $(shell if $(CC) -fno-strict-aliasing -S -o /dev/null -xc /dev/null >/dev/null 2>&1; then echo "-fno-strict-aliasing"; fi) doesn't work for me. -fno-strict-aliasing is still enabled, while my compiler doesn't understand it. I'm using gcc version egcs-2.90.27 980315 (egcs-1.0.2 release). Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE) Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55 Voice +32-2-7248632 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 13:23:19 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:23:10 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:63321 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:22:51 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id NAA00272; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:18:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA98388 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:14:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA06082 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:13:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA01322 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:13:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA19215; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:13:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23690; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:13:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: , "Ralf Baechle" Cc: , , Subject: Re: Indy crashes Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:15:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: >> Today I exchanged the R5000 CPU module in my Indy against a R4600 module >> and found that on R4600SC the kernel runs reliable while it crashs pretty >> soon after booting on a R5000SC module. This is consistent with the >> reports that I've looked at. > >That could explain the crashes I see on the DDB Vrc-5074 as well, which has a >NEC VR5000. > >I'll try to fix the bootmem stuff ASAP and upgrade to 2.3.38. The problem may be in the assumption made even in the most recent 2.3.x code that a hit-writeback-invalidate cache operation on the secondary cache automagically affects the primary. That's the way it is on the R4000/4400, but that's not the way the R5000 is specified. So rather than set dma_cache_wback_inv to r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_sc or r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_pc, depending on the presence or absence of a primary cache, in the MIPS Technologies I bound it to a function: static void r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size) { r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_pc(addr, size); if(sc_present) r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_sc(addr, size); } However, I have not had the opportunity to test this code on an R5000SC platform. Looking at the R5000 spec, it is a little ambiguous. The special case of sc HWIs affecting the primary isn't there, but then again sc HWIs aren't even called out in the table of defined cache operations. Indeed, one *could* interpret the spec to mean that HWI on the *primary* flushes the secondary, the reverse of the R4000, but it's by no means clear. Thus I suggest hitting 'em both. Does anybody on this list have an R527x manual? How is HWI of the primary/seconday caches defined there? Regards, Kevin K. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 14:26:11 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:26:02 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:28534 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:25:48 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA14815; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:21:17 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA27393; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:25:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA88568 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:57:50 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA11954; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:57:29 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA26704; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:57:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14504.31299.82555.477086@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:57:23 -0800 (PST) To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: , "Ralf Baechle" , , , Subject: Re: Indy crashes In-Reply-To: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> References: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Kevin D. Kissell writes: ... > However, I have not had the opportunity to test this code on > an R5000SC platform. Looking at the R5000 spec, it is a > little ambiguous. The special case of sc HWIs affecting > the primary isn't there, but then again sc HWIs aren't even > called out in the table of defined cache operations. Indeed, > one *could* interpret the spec to mean that HWI on the > *primary* flushes the secondary, the reverse of the R4000, > but it's by no means clear. Thus I suggest hitting 'em both. > > Does anybody on this list have an R527x manual? How > is HWI of the primary/seconday caches defined there? I am very familiar with how the R5000 and similar processors works. The secondary cache is essentially independent of the primary caches, and is write-through. It hangs on the SysAD bus and captures cache lines being read, and returns a captured cache line on a later read. You must separately invalidate the primary and secondary caches. If you care about instruction cache coherency (as when reading in executable pages), you have to invalidate the primary instruction cache, not just the primary data cache. Since the secondary cache is write-through, you need only invalidate it on reads; you can ignore it on writes. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 14:27:01 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:26:52 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:57718 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:26:45 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA15045; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:22:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA78409; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:26:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id MAA00903 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:36:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id MAA89678 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:36:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id MAA07574 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:36:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA18487; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA22564; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:36:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <021c01bf772b$773033d0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: , Subject: Re: ioremap() broken? Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:38:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >in asm-mips/io.h we have: > > extern inline void * ioremap(unsigned long offset, unsigned long size) > { > return (void *) KSEG1ADDR(offset); > } > > #define readb(addr) (*(volatile unsigned char *) (0xa0000000 + (unsigned long)(addr))) > > >and in asm-mips/addrspace.h: > > #define KSEG1 0xa0000000 > > #define KSEG1ADDR(a) ((__typeof__(a))(((unsigned long)(a) & 0x1fffffff) | KSEG1)) > > >Hence if I map physical address range 0x1fa00300-0x1fa0033f and read from it: > > mapped = ioremap(0x1fa00300, 0x40); /* returns 0xbfa00300 */ > data = readb(mapped+0x20); > >then this fails miserably with > > Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 5fa00320 > > >My questions: > > 1. Is it really necessary to add anything to the addr in the readb() et al. > macros? ioremap() already takes care of that. There is something of an "embarassment of riches" in the kernel code in terms of mechanism for getting at I/O resources. I don't think it was ever intended that people use readb() on addresses that had already been massaged with ioremap(). ioremap() is used where the driver *expects* an memory-mapped I/O model, and is applied to pointers that will be used to directly reference the device. readb/writeb et. al. are for drivers that think that expect a more peek/poke like model. I don't think it was ever intended that someone apply both at once! Furthermore, there are some platforms where a further transformation is necessary to get from a PCI-relative memory-mapped I/O address to a CPU address on the MIPS platform, thus in our io.h we have: extern inline void * ioremap(unsigned long offset, unsigned long size) { extern unsigned long platform_io_mem_base; return (void *) KSEG1ADDR(offset | platform_io_mem_base); } > 2. If yes, isn't it better to or (`|') instead of add ('+') 0xa0000000 in the > readb() et al. macros (or to use the macro KSEG1ADDR())? One could make that argument. Others might say that addition is an more mnemonic operation for adding a base displacement. The results will be, one hopes, the same. But it's a fair question as to why KSEG1ADDR isn't used in preference indeed, it is in the MIPS 2.2.12 distribution. >FYI, I'm trying to make the UART in the NEC Vrc-5074 hosty bridge work cleanly >with serial.c. And serial.c first ioremap()s it. The ioremap/readb stuff is only in the latest versions of serial.c, (newer that I run with, anyway), and yes, you are right, it's broken. >Furthermore I see problems with > > #define isa_readb(a) readb(a) > >since ISA I/O space is not at 0xa0000000 but at 0xa6000000 on the NEC DDB >Vrc-5074. Don't we need an offset mips_io_mem_base, like is done on most other >non-ia32 architectures (cfr. mips_io_port_base for inb() and friends)? Isn't there an isa_slot_offset declaration? Odd. Even the i386 has a __ISA_IO_base in the definition. Anyway, the general problem is even worse than you think, since - never mind any ISA nonsense - the function that maps PCI memory into the CPU space is in theory independent of the function that maps CPU memory into the PCI space (for DMA or whatever). So the following functions may be needed in addition to ioremap. Note that these key off a platform_mem_iobus_base (the base of memory as seen on the I/O bus) as opposed to platform_io_mem_base (the base of I/O space seen as memory). These base addresses, in our version anyway, are declared in arch/mips/kernel./setup.c and can be modified in the platform setup code before any I/O macros are invoked. extern inline unsigned long virt_to_bus(volatile void * address) { extern unsigned long platform_mem_iobus_base; return (PHYSADDR(address) | platform_mem_iobus_base); } extern inline void * bus_to_virt(unsigned long address) { extern unsigned long platform_mem_iobus_base; return (void *)KSEG0ADDR((address & ~platform_mem_iobus_base)); } So, while we didn't put in the isa support, we did do a certain amount at MIPS to make arbitrary PCI platforms work with MIPS. You can snarf it from http://www.paralogos.com/mipslinux/ and see what I mean. And yes, one of these days, somebody needs to merge it into the SGI 2.3.x tree... Regards, Kevin K. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 15:21:31 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:21:22 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:40475 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:20:58 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id PAA01133; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:23:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA28743; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA43708 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:13:00 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA24889 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:12:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id PAA05552 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:12:57 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.16]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23489; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:12:43 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:13:46 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:13:46 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Ralf Baechle , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000214181346.I30488@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000203021018.A25786@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:01:44AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > Today I exchanged the R5000 CPU module in my Indy against a R4600 module > > and found that on R4600SC the kernel runs reliable while it crashs pretty > > soon after booting on a R5000SC module. This is consistent with the > > reports that I've looked at. > > That could explain the crashes I see on the DDB Vrc-5074 as well, which has a > NEC VR5000. > > I'll try to fix the bootmem stuff ASAP and upgrade to 2.3.38. I made a silly mistake during my tests and will have to retry. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 16:32:52 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:32:42 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:49957 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:32:22 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id QAA03263; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:27:51 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA51191 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:17:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA19906 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:17:22 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA08207 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:17:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.16]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29181; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:17:10 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:13:46 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:13:46 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: geert@linux-m68k.org, Ralf Baechle , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000215011346.D828@uni-koblenz.de> References: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:15:02PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > The problem may be in the assumption made even in the > most recent 2.3.x code that a hit-writeback-invalidate cache > operation on the secondary cache automagically affects the > primary. That's the way it is on the R4000/4400, but that's Yep. > not the way the R5000 is specified. So rather than set > dma_cache_wback_inv to r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_sc > or r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_pc, depending on the > presence or absence of a primary cache, in the MIPS > Technologies I bound it to a function: I don't even pretend that Linux is running on a R5000 with L2 except on Indy R5000SC's. These R5000 modules are different in that they don't use the L2 support which is part of the processor but rather use the same external cache implementation as the R4600SC CPU modules do. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 16:49:12 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:49:02 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:48172 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:48:55 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id QAA05751; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:44:24 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA52430 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:38:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA77816; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:38:24 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA03591; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:38:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.16]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00820; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:38:12 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:37:39 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:37:39 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Dominic Sweetman Cc: "William J. Earl" , "Kevin D. Kissell" , geert@linux-m68k.org, Ralf Baechle , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000215013739.E828@uni-koblenz.de> References: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> <14504.31299.82555.477086@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> <200002142345.XAA00626@gladsmuir.algor.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002142345.XAA00626@gladsmuir.algor.co.uk> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:45:06PM +0000, Dominic Sweetman wrote: > QED's RM7000 has an internal secondary cache which is more like (but > not compatible with) an R4000. As part of our Linux familiarisation > we'll try to get that working. It's 4-way set associative, 256Kbytes > big, unified and write-back; so that should shake out some more bugs. [...] > I used to be an advocate of the MIPS position; but what this argument > ignores is the difficulty of maintaining a portable software base, > particulary an OS which (like Linux) has grown up with invisible x86 > caches. > > To make sure that Linux/MIPS kernels are and remain robust we have to > convince lots of people to take the trouble to learn about visible > caches - even though the systems they're working on don't have them. > And we have to hope that driver writers will do the right thing, even > though they've never used a system which needs cache management code > and have none at hand to test their drivers with... > > This would be unlikely even if we all agreed what the word 'flush' > meant (does it mean "invalidate"? or "write-back"? or perhaps "both, > if necessary"? and can you build a robust OS without knowing the > answer?) Yes. > It *could* happen. MIPS are not the only family of CPUs with visible > caches - though I think they probably have by far the most complicated > ones, because of their high-end history. Sparc. > The meeting of Linux and MIPS is in this respect really good for Linux > - great at finding portability problems. But it's not particularly > good for MIPS. For now, Linux/MIPS kernels will only be reliable if > maintained by people who understand this stuff, keep a safe distance > from the x86 mainstream, and use only sanity-checked drivers. No longer. With Linux 2.3.41 Linux received a number of new software interfaces which also could easily be backported to previous kernels. As the side effect you even get scatter gather capabilities for every driver. Btw, please take a look at the new interfaces, they're documented in Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt. They're not yet cast into stone, so if anybody has something to complain about these interfaces, better do it soon. > Kevin, I think you'd better tell your colleagues who design the chips > that they'd better put some snooping in, and soon... For I/O isn't not that bad to handle except a few cases like the NCR 53c8xx driver. And there is always the silver bullet solution of using uncached accesses. Things like mmap() and read/write right in the presence of virtual indexed caches are the real vomit bag. Linus & Co. so far refuse to accept any of the optimal solutions. And while I'd of course would like to such a solution to get into the kernel I can well understand Linus' refusal. >From that point of view the RM7000 is the first MIPS CPU that got caches right since the R6000 ... Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 18:25:07 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:24:58 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:42034 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:24:51 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id SAA02482; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:27:43 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id SAA82862 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:11:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id SAA22525 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:11:45 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id SAA00838 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:11:44 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.16]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA07197; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:11:41 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:10:48 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:10:48 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: geert@linux-m68k.org Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: ioremap() broken? Message-ID: <20000215031048.J828@uni-koblenz.de> References: <200002141840.KAA13040@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002141840.KAA13040@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:40:12AM -0800, geert@linux-m68k.org wrote: > in asm-mips/io.h we have: > > extern inline void * ioremap(unsigned long offset, unsigned long size) > { > return (void *) KSEG1ADDR(offset); > } > > #define readb(addr) (*(volatile unsigned char *) (0xa0000000 + (unsigned long)(addr))) > > > and in asm-mips/addrspace.h: > > #define KSEG1 0xa0000000 > > #define KSEG1ADDR(a) ((__typeof__(a))(((unsigned long)(a) & 0x1fffffff) | KSEG1)) > > > Hence if I map physical address range 0x1fa00300-0x1fa0033f and read from it: > > mapped = ioremap(0x1fa00300, 0x40); /* returns 0xbfa00300 */ > data = readb(mapped+0x20); > > then this fails miserably with > > Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 5fa00320 > > > My questions: > > 1. Is it really necessary to add anything to the addr in the readb() et al. > macros? ioremap() already takes care of that. > > 2. If yes, isn't it better to or (`|') instead of add ('+') 0xa0000000 in the > readb() et al. macros (or to use the macro KSEG1ADDR())? > > > FYI, I'm trying to make the UART in the NEC Vrc-5074 hosty bridge work cleanly > with serial.c. And serial.c first ioremap()s it. > > > Furthermore I see problems with > > #define isa_readb(a) readb(a) > > since ISA I/O space is not at 0xa0000000 but at 0xa6000000 on the NEC DDB > Vrc-5074. Don't we need an offset mips_io_mem_base, like is done on most other > non-ia32 architectures (cfr. mips_io_port_base for inb() and friends)? This is mostly historical garbage. Looong time ago we didn't have well defined semantics for ioremap() and readb() etc. As the result we had a wild mix of drivers some of which were feeding physical addresses, others virtual addresses as the arguments to readb - and some did a even wilder things. Only few of the drivers we're commonly using with the supported platforms rely on these functions so the way they are represents something that is made up to get those few drivers working. Time to get those things into the shape they're suppose to be, these days pretty much every new MIPS system is also PCI based. (I'll try to fix the RM200 support sometime soon. That should fix all the (E)ISA and PCI related things in one go.) Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 14 21:52:57 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:52:49 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:5949 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:52:33 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id VAA09707; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:55:24 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id VAA20005; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id VAA29388 for linux-list; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:39:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id VAA99604 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:39:01 -0800 (PST) mail_from (sgi.com!Cologne.DE!excalibur.cologne.de!karsten) Received: from fileserv2.Cologne.DE (fileserv2.cologne.de [193.29.188.3]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id VAA02594 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:38:59 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Cologne.DE!excalibur.cologne.de!karsten) Received: from localhost (1472 bytes) by fileserv2.Cologne.DE via rmail with P:stdio/R:bind/T:smtp (sender: ) (ident using unix) id for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:38:55 +0100 (CET) (Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #5 built 1998-Jan-19) Received: (from karsten@localhost) by excalibur.cologne.de (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA05152; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:23:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20000214222312.D3707@excalibur.cologne.de> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:23:12 +0100 From: Karsten Merker To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Where can I find the SRPMs Mail-Followup-To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com References: <38A820B1.BA9FD53F@mips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91i In-Reply-To: <38A820B1.BA9FD53F@mips.com>; from Carsten Langgaard on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:35:13PM +0100 X-No-Archive: yes Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:35:13PM +0100, Carsten Langgaard wrote: > I haven't been able to locate the SRPMs for the following RPMs: > > info-3.12-4.mipseb.rpm > zlib-devel-1.1.2-2.mipseb.rpm > glibc-devel-2.0.6-4.mipseb.rpm I do not have the locations for these available, but at least on little endian systems the RedHat-6.0 packages zlib-1.1.3 and info-3.12f compile out of the box. I have a glibc-2.0.6-6.src.rpm from ftp.linux.sgi.com but I have not seen a glibc-2.0.6-4.src.rpm. HTH, Karsten -- #include Nach Paragraph 28 Abs. 3 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung oder Uebermittlung meiner Daten fuer Werbezwecke oder fuer die Markt- oder Meinungsforschung. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 03:37:30 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:37:22 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:58189 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:36:56 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id DAA04843; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:39:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id DAA81431 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:21:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id DAA30084 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:20:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id DAA03956 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:20:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id DAA04439; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id DAA14616; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:20:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00f001bf77a7$01e6cd10$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Geert Uytterhoeven" Cc: Subject: Re: ioremap() broken? Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:22:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >> > 1. Is it really necessary to add anything to the addr in the readb() et al. >> > macros? ioremap() already takes care of that. >> >> There is something of an "embarassment of riches" in the kernel >> code in terms of mechanism for getting at I/O resources. I don't >> think it was ever intended that people use readb() on addresses >> that had already been massaged with ioremap(). ioremap() is >> used where the driver *expects* an memory-mapped I/O model, >> and is applied to pointers that will be used to directly reference >> the device. readb/writeb et. al. are for drivers that think that expect >> a more peek/poke like model. I don't think it was ever intended that >> someone apply both at once! > >Yes it is! Please read Documentation/IO-mapping.txt. To access PCI memory >space, you have to use ioremap() and readb() and friends. If PCI drivers have >to work across differen architectures, this has to be fixed. OK, having looked at the documentation, I've seen the Holy Word of Linus in the topic, even if it seems to be honored mainly in the breach in real world drivers. It also seems to be somewhat confusing in its treatment of ISA versus PCI, and insufficient to handle some possible system configurations. More on this later. . But for Geert's problem, the fix is simple - get rid of the offset added in the readb() macro and its friends. Linus' definitions are a bit vague. The "addresses" returned by ioremap() need not, according to his description, be valid addresses at all, but must simply be tokens that are unique within the system and usable by readb() et. al. All VM manipulation *could* be handled in the readb() code, but that would in general be inefficient. It seems clear enough that ioremap() should encapsulate all address transformation and VM resource management, and that readb() should encapsulate the mechanics of the data transfer. It is a coincidence that ioremap() is so simple on most current MIPS platforms. On some systems, and on MIPS systems with more than 512M of combined memory and mapped I/O, it would be necessary to invoke VM functions to create (and possibly wire) a kernel address mapping, and on such systems ioremap() would have some real work to do. The readb/writeb/etc. macros thus are not expected to fix any mappings, but rather to provide wrappers that would conceal the use of special I/O access instructions, non-fatal bus error resolution, etc., depending on the platform and the architecture. On current MIPS systems, it maps directly to a load/store. Kevin K. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 09:31:42 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:31:32 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:40214 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:31:25 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id JAA01852; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:26:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id JAA28107; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id JAA06839 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:14:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id JAA66838 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:14:18 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from mail.ivm.net (mail.ivm.net [62.204.1.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id JAA01942 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:16:40 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from franz.no.dom (port44.duesseldorf.ivm.de [195.247.65.44]) by mail.ivm.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26476; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:13:52 +0100 X-To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <00f001bf77a7$01e6cd10$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:14:33 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: "Harald Koerfgen" Organization: none From: Harald Koerfgen To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Subject: Re: ioremap() broken? Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Geert Uytterhoeven Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On 15-Feb-00 Kevin D. Kissell wrote: >>> > 1. Is it really necessary to add anything to the addr in the readb() et >>> > al. >>> > macros? ioremap() already takes care of that. >>> >>> There is something of an "embarassment of riches" in the kernel >>> code in terms of mechanism for getting at I/O resources. I don't >>> think it was ever intended that people use readb() on addresses >>> that had already been massaged with ioremap(). ioremap() is >>> used where the driver *expects* an memory-mapped I/O model, >>> and is applied to pointers that will be used to directly reference >>> the device. readb/writeb et. al. are for drivers that think that expect >>> a more peek/poke like model. I don't think it was ever intended that >>> someone apply both at once! >> >>Yes it is! Please read Documentation/IO-mapping.txt. To access PCI memory >>space, you have to use ioremap() and readb() and friends. If PCI drivers have >>to work across differen architectures, this has to be fixed. > > It is a coincidence that ioremap() is so simple on most current MIPS > platforms. On some systems, and on MIPS systems with more than > 512M of combined memory and mapped I/O, it would be necessary > to invoke VM functions to create (and possibly wire) a kernel address > mapping, and on such systems ioremap() would have some real work > to do. Yes, indeed. The Philips PR31700/Toshiba TMPR3912 is such a beast and I could imagine that other MIPS based embedded CPUs tend to be similar. On this particular CPU PCMCIA memory is accessed through *physical* addresses 0x64000000-0x6bffffff, and thus unreachable through KSEG0 or KSEG1. To make things even more delicate, this CPU is based on a R3000 core and supports 4kB pages only, so even ye olde "let's create a wired TLB entry with 16 MB page size"-trick will not work. Before you're beginning to ask, yes, I *do* have Linux/MIPS running on a Sharp Mobilon HC-4500 :-), and, no, PCMCIA is not working yet :-( What I am trying to say is that sooner or later we may have to deal with this case as well. --- Regards, Harald From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 10:04:22 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:04:02 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:19566 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:03:38 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id KAA09849; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:06:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id JAA48143 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:51:05 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id JAA36528; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:49:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA11519; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:49:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14505.37279.164044.582169@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:49:19 -0800 (PST) To: Ralf Baechle Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" , geert@linux-m68k.org, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes In-Reply-To: <20000215011346.D828@uni-koblenz.de> References: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> <20000215011346.D828@uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle writes: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:15:02PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: ... > > not the way the R5000 is specified. So rather than set > > dma_cache_wback_inv to r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_sc > > or r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv_pc, depending on the > > presence or absence of a primary cache, in the MIPS > > Technologies I bound it to a function: > > I don't even pretend that Linux is running on a R5000 with L2 except on > Indy R5000SC's. These R5000 modules are different in that they don't use > the L2 support which is part of the processor but rather use the same > external cache implementation as the R4600SC CPU modules do. ... If someone wants to do the real R5000SC (and RM5271 and RM7000) cache routines, for some other platform, I can supply the required details. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 11:00:33 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:00:24 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:15479 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:00:00 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA05379; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:02:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA08084 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:09 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA39248 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA15363 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:00 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151846.KAA15363@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: geert@linux-m68k.org To: "Kevin D. Kissell" cc: Ralf Baechle , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes In-Reply-To: <022301bf7730$92b87180$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > >On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > >> Today I exchanged the R5000 CPU module in my Indy against a R4600 module > >> and found that on R4600SC the kernel runs reliable while it crashs pretty > >> soon after booting on a R5000SC module. This is consistent with the > >> reports that I've looked at. > > > >That could explain the crashes I see on the DDB Vrc-5074 as well, which has a > >NEC VR5000. > > > >I'll try to fix the bootmem stuff ASAP and upgrade to 2.3.38. > > The problem may be in the assumption made even in the > most recent 2.3.x code that a hit-writeback-invalidate cache > operation on the secondary cache automagically affects the > primary. That's the way it is on the R4000/4400, but that's In that case it doesn't affect the NEC DDB Vrc-5074, since there's no L2. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE) Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55 Voice +32-2-7248632 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 11:00:53 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:00:43 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:15991 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:00:00 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA03337; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:02:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA31962 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA69511 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:45 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA15400 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151846.KAA15400@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: geert@linux-m68k.org To: "Kevin D. Kissell" cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: ioremap() broken? In-Reply-To: <021c01bf772b$773033d0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > >in asm-mips/io.h we have: > > > > extern inline void * ioremap(unsigned long offset, unsigned long size) > > { > > return (void *) KSEG1ADDR(offset); > > } > > > > #define readb(addr) (*(volatile unsigned char *) (0xa0000000 + (unsigned > long)(addr))) > > > > > >and in asm-mips/addrspace.h: > > > > #define KSEG1 0xa0000000 > > > > #define KSEG1ADDR(a) ((__typeof__(a))(((unsigned long)(a) & > 0x1fffffff) | KSEG1)) > > > > > >Hence if I map physical address range 0x1fa00300-0x1fa0033f and read from it: > > > > mapped = ioremap(0x1fa00300, 0x40); /* returns 0xbfa00300 */ > > data = readb(mapped+0x20); > > > >then this fails miserably with > > > > Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 5fa00320 > > > > > >My questions: > > > > 1. Is it really necessary to add anything to the addr in the readb() et al. > > macros? ioremap() already takes care of that. > > There is something of an "embarassment of riches" in the kernel > code in terms of mechanism for getting at I/O resources. I don't > think it was ever intended that people use readb() on addresses > that had already been massaged with ioremap(). ioremap() is > used where the driver *expects* an memory-mapped I/O model, > and is applied to pointers that will be used to directly reference > the device. readb/writeb et. al. are for drivers that think that expect > a more peek/poke like model. I don't think it was ever intended that > someone apply both at once! Yes it is! Please read Documentation/IO-mapping.txt. To access PCI memory space, you have to use ioremap() and readb() and friends. If PCI drivers have to work across differen architectures, this has to be fixed. > >Furthermore I see problems with > > > > #define isa_readb(a) readb(a) > > > >since ISA I/O space is not at 0xa0000000 but at 0xa6000000 on the NEC DDB > >Vrc-5074. Don't we need an offset mips_io_mem_base, like is done on most other > >non-ia32 architectures (cfr. mips_io_port_base for inb() and friends)? > Oops, I screwed up my explanation and exchanged memory/I/O space. I intended to write ... since ISA memory space is not at 0xa0000000 but at 0xa8000000 on the ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ NEC DDB Vrc-5074. > Isn't there an isa_slot_offset declaration? Odd. Even the > i386 has a __ISA_IO_base in the definition. We have mips_io_port_base (cfr. __ISA_IO_base), but we don't have such a thing for ISA memory space. > Anyway, the general problem is even worse than you think, > since - never mind any ISA nonsense - the function that maps > PCI memory into the CPU space is in theory independent of > the function that maps CPU memory into the PCI space (for > DMA or whatever). So the following functions may be needed I know. > in addition to ioremap. Note that these key off a > platform_mem_iobus_base (the base of memory as seen > on the I/O bus) as opposed to platform_io_mem_base > (the base of I/O space seen as memory). These base > addresses, in our version anyway, are declared in > arch/mips/kernel./setup.c and can be modified in the > platform setup code before any I/O macros are invoked. > > extern inline unsigned long virt_to_bus(volatile void * address) > { > extern unsigned long platform_mem_iobus_base; > > return (PHYSADDR(address) | platform_mem_iobus_base); > } > > extern inline void * bus_to_virt(unsigned long address) > { > extern unsigned long platform_mem_iobus_base; > > return (void *)KSEG0ADDR((address & ~platform_mem_iobus_base)); > } These are no problem. The problem is that the values returned by ioremap() canot be used with readb() et al. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE) Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55 Voice +32-2-7248632 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 11:22:23 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:22:14 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:56698 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:21:58 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA05146; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:24:50 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA31613; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:21:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id LAA71787 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:01:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA97829; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:01:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA16636; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:01:13 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14505.41593.247197.385716@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:01:13 -0800 (PST) To: "Harald Koerfgen" Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: ioremap() broken? In-Reply-To: References: <00f001bf77a7$01e6cd10$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Harald Koerfgen writes: > > On 15-Feb-00 Kevin D. Kissell wrote: ... > > It is a coincidence that ioremap() is so simple on most current MIPS > > platforms. On some systems, and on MIPS systems with more than > > 512M of combined memory and mapped I/O, it would be necessary > > to invoke VM functions to create (and possibly wire) a kernel address > > mapping, and on such systems ioremap() would have some real work > > to do. > > Yes, indeed. The Philips PR31700/Toshiba TMPR3912 is such a beast and I could > imagine that other MIPS based embedded CPUs tend to be similar. > > On this particular CPU PCMCIA memory is accessed through *physical* addresses > 0x64000000-0x6bffffff, and thus unreachable through KSEG0 or KSEG1. To make > things even more delicate, this CPU is based on a R3000 core and supports 4kB > pages only, so even ye olde "let's create a wired TLB entry with 16 MB page > size"-trick will not work. ... As part of the XFS port to Linux, Steve Lord (lord@sgi.com) has done a function to map a set of pages into contiguous kernel virtual space, where the kernel virtual space is dynamically allocated and released as one acquires and releases the mapping. (For calls which happen to resolve to a single, statically-mapped page, the call can use the static mapping.) This is presently embedded in a higher-level module, but it could be made a separate facility. The present implementation is inefficient, as it uses an inefficient underlying Linux facility, but that could be fixed if there much need for it. Check with Steve Lord if interested. The XFS source is trickling out onto oss.sgi.com as we finished the encumbrance reviews, but it will be at least a few weeks more before a compilable patch is available. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 15:19:35 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:19:16 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:59225 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:18:46 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id PAA07408; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:14:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA54855 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:28:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from deliverator.sgi.com (deliverator.sgi.com [150.166.91.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA88401 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:28:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA22358 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:24:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA17249; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA03662; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:21:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006501bf7803$59855ad0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Geert Uytterhoeven" Cc: "Ralf Baechle" , , , Subject: Re: Indy crashes Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:23:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >> The problem may be in the assumption made even in the >> most recent 2.3.x code that a hit-writeback-invalidate cache >> operation on the secondary cache automagically affects the >> primary. That's the way it is on the R4000/4400, but that's > >In that case it doesn't affect the NEC DDB Vrc-5074, since there's no L2. If it isn't the cache, and it tracks the CPU type, the next thing I suspect is a pipe hazard. The R5000 manual states that there should be "at least two integer instructions between" any instruction modifying the PageMask, EntryHi, or EntryLo[01] registers and the subsequent tlbw[ir] or tlbp. That's different from the R4000. In the current Linux arch/mips/head.S file, this interval does not seem to be respected by any of the TLB miss handlers. Indeed, the default except_vec0_r4000 handler, which I believe is what is used if an R5000 is detected, has the sequence mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 # load it b 1f tlbwr # write random tlb entry 1: nop eret wherin the purpose of the branch is obscure (I imagine it fixed a bug seen somewhere on some CPU but it makes me rather queasy) but wherein in any case we do not seem to be assured 2 issues between the mtc0 and the tlbwr. It should be OK for an R4000, but not for an R5000. So someone with the ability to reproduce the R5000 problem should really try sticking a nop between the mtc0 and the branch (sigh) to see if that stabilizes the system. Regards, Kevin K. __ Kevin D. Kissell MIPS Technologies European Architecture Lab kevink@mips.com Tel. +33.4.78.38.70.67 FAX. +33.4.78.38.70.68 From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 16:27:05 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:26:46 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:35449 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:26:26 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (gate3-relay.engr.sgi.com [130.62.1.234]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id QAA16026; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:21:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA74646 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:16:17 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA71895 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:16:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA09319 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:16:18 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-22.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-22.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.22]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02764; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:15:59 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:13:37 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:13:37 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000216011337.C4633@uni-koblenz.de> References: <006501bf7803$59855ad0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <006501bf7803$59855ad0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:23:49PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > If it isn't the cache, and it tracks the CPU type, the next thing > I suspect is a pipe hazard. The R5000 manual states that there > should be "at least two integer instructions between" any > instruction modifying the PageMask, EntryHi, or EntryLo[01] > registers and the subsequent tlbw[ir] or tlbp. That's different > from the R4000. In the current Linux arch/mips/head.S file, > this interval does not seem to be respected by any of the TLB > miss handlers. Indeed, the default except_vec0_r4000 handler, > which I believe is what is used if an R5000 is detected, has > the sequence > > mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 # load it > b 1f > tlbwr # write random tlb entry > 1: > nop > eret > > wherin the purpose of the branch is obscure (I imagine > it fixed a bug seen somewhere on some CPU but it > makes me rather queasy) but wherein in any case we > do not seem to be assured 2 issues between the mtc0 > and the tlbwr. It should be OK for an R4000, but not for > an R5000. No, it's not a bug workaround. The reason for this branch is that the R4000 and R4400 have a penalty of three cycles for a taken branch. So the branch above is equivalent with mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 nop tlbwr nop nop nop eret Funky trick, isn't it? I don't have the the R4600 / R5000 docs at hand but as I understood them the above code should also work just perfect for them. > So someone with the ability to reproduce the R5000 > problem should really try sticking a nop between the > mtc0 and the branch (sigh) to see if that stabilizes > the system. Talking about CPU bugs - the R5230 and maybe it's relatives needs a nasty workaround. I think I only put the workaround into the Cobalt kernel. Of course IDT doesn't admit that this bug even exists ... Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 17:29:56 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:29:36 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:22037 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:29:05 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id RAA23199; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:24:34 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA49854; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:29:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA01376 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:17:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA33395; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:16:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA09994; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:16:46 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14505.64125.564813.333784@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:16:45 -0800 (PST) To: Ralf Baechle Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes In-Reply-To: <20000216011337.C4633@uni-koblenz.de> References: <006501bf7803$59855ad0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> <20000216011337.C4633@uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle writes: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:23:49PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: ... > > mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 # load it > > b 1f > > tlbwr # write random tlb entry > > 1: > > nop > > eret ... > Funky trick, isn't it? I don't have the the R4600 / R5000 docs at hand > but as I understood them the above code should also work just perfect > for them. There is a need for a workaround on the R5000 for a "bad $badvaddr" problem. The except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug() variation does not appear to be enabled for the R5000. (It should not be needed for the RM7000 or the RM5271.) From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 17:36:06 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:35:56 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:1069 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:35:46 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (gate3-relay.engr.sgi.com [130.62.1.234]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id RAA00627; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:38:38 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA42390 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:24:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA58709; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:24:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id RAA08204; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:24:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-22.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-22.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.22]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06438; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:24:04 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:23:34 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:23:34 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "William J. Earl" Cc: Ralf Baechle , "Kevin D. Kissell" , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000216022334.A1070@uni-koblenz.de> References: <006501bf7803$59855ad0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> <20000216011337.C4633@uni-koblenz.de> <14505.64125.564813.333784@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <14505.64125.564813.333784@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:16:45PM -0800, William J. Earl wrote: > Ralf Baechle writes: > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:23:49PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > ... > > > mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 # load it > > > b 1f > > > tlbwr # write random tlb entry > > > 1: > > > nop > > > eret > ... > > Funky trick, isn't it? I don't have the the R4600 / R5000 docs at hand > > but as I understood them the above code should also work just perfect > > for them. > > There is a need for a workaround on the R5000 for a "bad $badvaddr" > problem. The except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug() variation does not appear to be > enabled for the R5000. (It should not be needed for the RM7000 or the RM5271.) I don't have this bug in my erratas documented, can you elaborate on it? Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 15 17:58:26 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:58:06 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:14115 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:57:48 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id RAA26011; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:53:17 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA38960; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:57:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA82651 for linux-list; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:46:45 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA08518; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:46:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA11942; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:46:20 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14506.350.713324.113307@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:46:06 -0800 (PST) To: Ralf Baechle Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes In-Reply-To: <20000216022334.A1070@uni-koblenz.de> References: <006501bf7803$59855ad0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> <20000216011337.C4633@uni-koblenz.de> <14505.64125.564813.333784@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> <20000216022334.A1070@uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle writes: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:16:45PM -0800, William J. Earl wrote: ... > > There is a need for a workaround on the R5000 for a "bad $badvaddr" > > problem. The except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug() variation does not appear to be > > enabled for the R5000. (It should not be needed for the RM7000 or the RM5271.) > > I don't have this bug in my erratas documented, can you elaborate on it? Sometimes you get a utlbmiss exception when there is already matching TLB entry. If you then blindly drop in the TLB entry, you get a duplicate, which leads to Bad Things (tm). The workaround is to probe for a duplicate, and skip the tlbwr if an entry already exists. It should be enabled on any real R5000. This is from the R5000 Errata list of 30 October 1997: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. An erroneous JTLB miss exception will be taken under these conditions. a) An instruction which does not cause an exception or stall is 8 bytes away from the end of a page. b) A load or store instruction is the last instruction of that page. c) The load/store target address has a matching but invalid JTLB entry d) The next sequential page is not mapped in the JTLB In this situation, when the load/store instruction is executed, a JTLB invalid exception should be taken, instead a JTLB miss exception is incorrectly taken. If the exception handler does a random TLB write to resolve the exception, this will in general insert a duplicate TLB entry for each erroneous exception. If the first instruction is a jump or branch, this will cause an infinite loop of JTLB miss exceptions to occur upon the return from the exception handler. Otherwise, there will be only one erroneous exception, followed by a correct exception, leaving one duplicate entry in the TLB. A software fix is for the JTLB miss handler to detect this situation, by probing for a matching TLB entry (treating a hit as being this case), ignore the JTLB miss and treat the exception as an JTLB invalid exception. Errata 3 is fixed in Rev 2.0. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not clear to me that Errata 3 is fixed in all cases in Rev 2.*, so IRIX has the workaround enabled for all R5000 revisions. In Linux, just use except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug() for any R5000. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 16 01:48:19 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:47:59 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:54843 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:47:29 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id BAA01309; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:42:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id BAA62798; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:47:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id BAA31576 for linux-list; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:35:11 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id BAA48656 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:35:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (machida@sm.sony.co.jp) Received: from ns4.sony.co.jp (ns4.Sony.CO.JP [202.238.80.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id BAA00500 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:35:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (machida@sm.sony.co.jp) Received: from mail3.sony.co.jp (gatekeeper7.Sony.CO.JP [202.238.80.21]) by ns4.sony.co.jp (02/04/00) with ESMTP id SAA29351 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:35:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail1.sm.sony.co.jp (smail1.sm.sony.co.jp [43.11.253.1]) by mail3.sony.co.jp (3.7W99051310c) with ESMTP id SAA04398 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:35:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from imail.sm.sony.co.jp (imail.sm.sony.co.jp [43.27.209.5]) by smail1.sm.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/3.6W) with ESMTP id SAA02246 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:34:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from mach0.sm.sony.co.jp (mach0.sm.sony.co.jp [43.27.210.135]) by imail.sm.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/3.7W) with ESMTP id SAA20704 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:34:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost by mach0.sm.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/FreeBSD) with ESMTP id SAA24425; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:34:30 +0900 (JST) To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Question about copy_from_user() X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.1 on Emacs 19.34 / Mule 2.3 (SUETSUMUHANA) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20000216183429L.machida@sm.sony.co.jp> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:34:29 +0900 From: Hiroyuki Machida X-Dispatcher: imput version 990905(IM130) Lines: 46 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Hi. I think I found a redundant code in copy_from_user() and __copy_from_user() at current CVS asm-mips/uaccess.h. I think '*'-marked part in the definiton is obsolete and redundant. It had to used in the exception fixup routine as commented at arch/mips/lib/memcpy.S. (Of course the comment is also obsolete, I think.) #define __copy_from_user(to,from,n) ({ \ void *__cu_to; \ const void *__cu_from; \ long __cu_len; \ \ __cu_to = (to); \ __cu_from = (from); \ __cu_len = (n); \ __asm__ __volatile__( \ "move\t$4, %1\n\t" \ "move\t$5, %2\n\t" \ "move\t$6, %3\n\t" \ * ".set\tnoat\n\t" \ * "addu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ * ".set\tat\n\t" \ __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ "move\t%0, $6" \ : "=r" (__cu_len) \ : "r" (__cu_to), "r" (__cu_from), "r" (__cu_len) \ : "$4", "$5", "$6", "$8", "$9", "$10", "$11", "$12", "$15", \ "$24", "$31","memory"); \ __cu_len; \ }) (Even if $1 is still used at the exception fixup routine, when MODULE is defined, __MODULE_JAL will overwrite $1 at the next line.) Is my concern correct? Please let me know. Thanks. --- Hiroyuki Machida Creative Station SCE Inc./Sony Corp. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 16 02:52:19 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:52:10 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:25167 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:51:43 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (gate3-relay.engr.sgi.com [130.62.1.234]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id CAA05719; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:47:11 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id CAA52135 for linux-list; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:40:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id CAA66026 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:40:44 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id CAA06688 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:40:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id CAA00085; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:40:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id CAA22938; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:40:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003101bf786a$8c44d150$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Ralf Baechle" Cc: "Geert Uytterhoeven" , , , Subject: Re: Indy crashes Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:42:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle writes: >On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:23:49PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: >> The R5000 manual states that there >> should be "at least two integer instructions between" any >> instruction modifying the PageMask, EntryHi, or EntryLo[01] >> registers and the subsequent tlbw[ir] or tlbp. That's different >> from the R4000. In the current Linux arch/mips/head.S file, >> this interval does not seem to be respected by any of the TLB >> miss handlers. Indeed, the default except_vec0_r4000 handler, >> which I believe is what is used if an R5000 is detected, has >> the sequence >> >> mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 # load it >> b 1f >> tlbwr # write random tlb entry >> 1: >> nop >> eret >> >> wherin the purpose of the branch is obscure (I imagine >> it fixed a bug seen somewhere on some CPU but it >> makes me rather queasy) but wherein in any case we >> do not seem to be assured 2 issues between the mtc0 >> and the tlbwr. It should be OK for an R4000, but not for >> an R5000. > >No, it's not a bug workaround. The reason for this branch is that the >R4000 and R4400 have a penalty of three cycles for a taken branch. So >the branch above is equivalent with > > mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 > nop > tlbwr > nop > nop > nop > eret > >Funky trick, isn't it? I don't have the the R4600 / R5000 docs at hand >but as I understood them the above code should also work just perfect >for them. No. Not as I read the specs. There are three problems here. First, the question is *not* one of no-ops between the TLBWR and the ERET, but of no-ops between the MTC0 and the TLBWR - re-read the quoted text above from my previous message. So the code may well be broken as I conjectured even if your assumption about the branch delay was valid. Second, the R5000 and R4600 piprlines are not as deep as those of the R4000/4400. The R5000 documentation calls out a branch implementation with a *single* delay cycle. I quote: "The one cycle branch delay is a result of the branch comparison logic operating during the 1A pipeline stage of the branch. This allows the branch target address calculated in the previous stage to be used for the instruction access in the following 1I phase." So even if the execution of the branch were inserting delay between the MTC0 and the TLBWR as you seemed to assume, it might not be inserting as much delay as you think. Thirdly, this whole thread underscores why "clever" solutions that depend on implementation features of particular CPUs should be avoided whenever possible. If you want to be assured of getting a delay cycle in a MIPS instruction stream, you should use a "SSNOP", (sll r0,r0,1 as opposed to the "nop" sll r0,r0,0), which forces delays even in superscalar implementations. >> So someone with the ability to reproduce the R5000 >> problem should really try sticking a nop between the >> mtc0 and the branch (sigh) to see if that stabilizes >> the system. I still think this would be a good idea. Further, from Bill Earl's comment on this same thread, it sounds like, to be conservative, trap_init() in arch/mips/kernel/traps.c needs to detect the R5000 case and patch in except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug instead of except_vec0_r4000, and that furthermore a nop (or ssnop) be added between the MTC0 and the branch of except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug. >Talking about CPU bugs - the R5230 and maybe it's relatives needs a nasty >workaround. I think I only put the workaround into the Cobalt kernel. >Of course IDT doesn't admit that this bug even exists ... Um, why should they, when IDT didn't do the R5230? ;-) Seriously, did you mean to refer to the R323xx from IDT, or to QED as the design house for the R5230? I have been running 2.2.12 on an R5260 for months and it has been very stable. To which bug and which workaround are you referring? Regards, Kevin K. __ Kevin D. Kissell MIPS Technologies European Architecture Lab kevink@mips.com Tel. +33.4.78.38.70.67 FAX. +33.4.78.38.70.68 From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 16 03:37:40 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:37:20 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:37976 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:36:48 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (gate3-relay.engr.sgi.com [130.62.1.234]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id DAA07184; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:39:40 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id DAA57090 for linux-list; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:25:43 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id DAA51049 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:25:40 -0800 (PST) mail_from (flo@rfc822.org) Received: from noose.gt.owl.de (noose.gt.owl.de [62.52.19.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id DAA02748 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:25:43 -0800 (PST) mail_from (flo@rfc822.org) Received: by noose.gt.owl.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id DA79A7F3; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:25:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by paradigm.rfc822.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8F8298FC4; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:22:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:22:50 +0100 From: Florian Lohoff To: linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr Subject: oss.sgi.com CVS kernel doesn compile for DEC Message-ID: <20000216122250.A898@paradigm.rfc822.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i Organization: rfc822 - pure communication Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Just a small note - probably most of the people already stumbled on this. ar rcs lib.a csum_partial.o csum_partial_copy.o floppy-std.o floppy-no.o ide-std.o ide-no.o kbd-std.o kbd-no.o rtc-std.o rtc-no.o memcpy.o memset.o strlen_user.o strncpy_user.o strnlen_user.o watch.o dump_tlb.o make[2]: Leaving directory `/data/kernel/linux/arch/mips/lib' make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/kernel/linux/arch/mips/lib' ld -static -G 0 -T arch/mips/ld.script.little -Ttext 0x80040000 arch/mips/kernel/head.o arch/mips/kernel/init_task.o init/main.o init/version.o \ --start-group \ arch/mips/kernel/kernel.o arch/mips/mm/mm.o kernel/kernel.o mm/mm.o fs/fs.o ipc/ipc.o arch/mips/dec/dec.o \ net/network.a \ drivers/block/block.a drivers/char/char.o drivers/misc/misc.o drivers/net/net.o drivers/parport/parport.a drivers/scsi/scsi.a drivers/cdrom/cdrom.a drivers/video/video.o drivers/tc/tc.a \ arch/mips/lib/lib.a /data/kernel/linux/lib/lib.a arch/mips/dec/prom/rexlib.a \ --end-group \ -o vmlinux drivers/char/char.o: In function `setkeycode': keyboard.c(.text+0x848c): undefined reference to `pckbd_setkeycode' keyboard.c(.text+0x848c): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 pckbd_setkeycode drivers/char/char.o: In function `getkeycode': keyboard.c(.text+0x84a8): undefined reference to `pckbd_getkeycode' keyboard.c(.text+0x84a8): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 pckbd_getkeycode drivers/char/char.o: In function `handle_scancode': keyboard.c(.text+0x85c8): undefined reference to `pckbd_translate' keyboard.c(.text+0x85c8): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 pckbd_translate keyboard.c(.text+0x8634): undefined reference to `pckbd_unexpected_up' keyboard.c(.text+0x8634): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 pckbd_unexpected_up drivers/char/char.o: In function `kbd_bh': keyboard.c(.text+0x9ab0): undefined reference to `pckbd_leds' keyboard.c(.text+0x9ab0): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 pckbd_leds drivers/char/char.o: In function `misc_register': misc.c(.text.init+0x910): undefined reference to `pckbd_init_hw' misc.c(.text.init+0x910): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 pckbd_init_hw make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 (root@193)/data/kernel/linux# egrep -i "KEY|KBD" .config # CONFIG_KEYBOARD is not set Flo -- Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-5241-470566 "Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots." From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 16 10:20:52 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:20:42 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:13165 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:20:27 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id KAA19750; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:15:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA99594 for linux-list; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:03:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA76628 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:03:00 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from mail.ivm.net (mail.ivm.net [62.204.1.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id KAA06661 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:03:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from franz.no.dom (port216.duesseldorf.ivm.de [195.247.65.216]) by mail.ivm.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA24531; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:02:37 +0100 X-To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:000216190255:1753=_" In-Reply-To: <38A91E19.CE7A9890@niisi.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:03:19 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: "Harald Koerfgen" Organization: none From: Harald Koerfgen To: "Gleb O. Raiko" Subject: RE: -fno-strict-aliasing problem in the latest 2.3 Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr, SGI Linux Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing This message is in MIME format --_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:000216190255:1753=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On 15-Feb-00 Gleb O. Raiko wrote: > There is a problem with the way main Makefile determines whether the > compiler suports -fno-strict-aliasing. Namely, Makefile blindly gets $CC > and tries to feed this option to it. Unfortunately, we set CC to proper > mips[el]-linux-gcc later in arch/mips/Makefile, so the main Makefile > just checks against native gcc. On RH6.1 with latest cross tool rpms > installed, I get cc1: Invalid option `-fno-strict-aliasing' during > comppilation, obviously. I am not exactly shure if it has ill side effects or if this may not be wanted for some reason, but the attached patch fixes that for me. OK to commit? --- Regards, Harald --_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:000216190255:1753=_ Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Makefile-patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Makefile-patch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name=Makefile-patch; SizeOnDisk=835 --- /nfs/cvs/linux-2.3/linux/Makefile Wed Feb 16 18:40:57 2000 +++ Makefile Wed Feb 16 18:53:13 2000 @@ -96,9 +96,6 @@ CFLAGS := $(CPPFLAGS) -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer AFLAGS := $(CPPFLAGS) -# use '-fno-strict-aliasing', but only if the compiler can take it -CFLAGS += $(shell if $(CC) -fno-strict-aliasing -S -o /dev/null -xc /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1; then echo "-fno-strict-aliasing"; fi) - # # if you want the RAM disk device, define this to be the # size in blocks. @@ -252,6 +249,9 @@ endif include arch/$(ARCH)/Makefile + +# use '-fno-strict-aliasing', but only if the compiler can take it +CFLAGS += $(shell if $(CC) -fno-strict-aliasing -S -o /dev/null -xc /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1; then echo "-fno-strict-aliasing"; fi) .S.s: $(CC) -D__ASSEMBLY__ $(AFLAGS) -traditional -E -o $*.s $< --_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:000216190255:1753=_-- End of MIME message From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 16 11:06:32 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:06:23 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:58902 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:05:55 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA03771; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:08:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA02054 for linux-list; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:51:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA25988; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:50:54 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA16521; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:50:47 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14506.61831.733915.236157@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:50:47 -0800 (PST) To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: "Ralf Baechle" , "Geert Uytterhoeven" , , , Subject: Re: Indy crashes In-Reply-To: <003101bf786a$8c44d150$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> References: <003101bf786a$8c44d150$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Kevin D. Kissell writes: > Ralf Baechle writes: > >On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:23:49PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: ... > >No, it's not a bug workaround. The reason for this branch is that the > >R4000 and R4400 have a penalty of three cycles for a taken branch. So > >the branch above is equivalent with > > > > mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 > > nop > > tlbwr > > nop > > nop > > nop > > eret > > > >Funky trick, isn't it? I don't have the the R4600 / R5000 docs at hand > >but as I understood them the above code should also work just perfect > >for them. > > No. Not as I read the specs. There are three problems here. > > First, the question is *not* one of no-ops between the TLBWR > and the ERET, but of no-ops between the MTC0 and the > TLBWR - re-read the quoted text above from my previous > message. So the code may well be broken as I conjectured > even if your assumption about the branch delay was valid. Empirically, this does not appear to be the case. Here are the handlers for the r4600 and r5000 on IRIX, which have been stable for years: eutlbmiss3_250mhz: [1023] 0x880849b0: 40 1a 20 00 mfc0 k0,context [1023] 0x880849b4: 00 1a d0 43 sra k0,k0,1 utlbmiss_r4600: [1031] 0x880849b8: 8f 5b 00 00 lw k1,0(k0) [1031] 0x880849bc: 8f 5a 00 04 lw k0,4(k0) [1032] 0x880849c0: 00 1b d9 80 sll k1,k1,6 [1032] 0x880849c4: 00 1b d9 82 srl k1,k1,6 [1033] 0x880849c8: 40 9b 10 00 mtc0 k1,tlblo [1034] 0x880849cc: 00 1a d1 80 sll k0,k0,6 [1034] 0x880849d0: 00 1a d1 82 srl k0,k0,6 [1035] 0x880849d4: 40 9a 18 00 mtc0 k0,tlblo1 [1036] 0x880849d8: 00 00 00 00 nop [1037] 0x880849dc: 42 00 00 06 c0 tlbwr [1038] 0x880849e0: 00 00 00 00 nop utlbmiss_eret_3: [1039] 0x880849e4: 0a 01 c9 59 j _r4600_2_0_cacheop_eret [1039] 0x880849e8: 00 00 00 00 nop _r4600_2_0_cacheop_eret: [ 211] 0x88072564: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 211] 0x88072568: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 211] 0x8807256c: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 211] 0x88072570: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 211] 0x88072574: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 211] 0x88072578: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 211] 0x8807257c: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 211] 0x88072580: 00 00 00 00 nop _r4600_2_0_cacheop_eret_inst: [ 211] 0x88072584: 42 00 00 18 c0 eret eutlbmiss3_250mhz: [1023] 0x880849b0: 40 1a 20 00 mfc0 k0,context [1023] 0x880849b4: 00 1a d0 43 sra k0,k0,1 utlbmiss_r5000: [1061] 0x8007ede8: 8f 5b 00 00 lw k1,0(k0) [1061] 0x8007edec: 8f 5a 00 04 lw k0,4(k0) [1062] 0x8007edf0: 42 00 00 08 c0 tlbp [1063] 0x8007edf4: 00 1b d9 00 sll k1,k1,4 [1063] 0x8007edf8: 00 1b d9 02 srl k1,k1,4 [1064] 0x8007edfc: 40 9b 10 00 mtc0 k1,tlblo [1065] 0x8007ee00: 40 1b 00 00 mfc0 k1,index [1066] 0x8007ee04: 00 1a d1 00 sll k0,k0,4 [1066] 0x8007ee08: 00 1a d1 02 srl k0,k0,4 [1067] 0x8007ee0c: 07 61 00 04 bgez k1,0x8007ee20 [1068] 0x8007ee10: 40 9a 18 00 mtc0 k0,tlblo1 [1069] 0x8007ee14: 42 00 00 06 c0 tlbwr [1070] 0x8007ee18: 00 00 00 00 nop [1071] 0x8007ee1c: 42 00 00 18 c0 eret Note that, in the R4600 case, the "j _r4600_2_0_cacheop_eret" is replaced with an eret on the R4600 Rev. 1.*. (The code is patched at system startup time.) Also notice that IRIX does not index a segment table directly. Instead, a second level TLB miss handler drops a mapping into a reserved part of K2SEG for the PTE page required, where the base of that reserved area is loaded into $context at startup time. > Second, the R5000 and R4600 piprlines are not as deep > as those of the R4000/4400. The R5000 documentation > calls out a branch implementation with a *single* delay cycle. > I quote: "The one cycle branch delay is a result of the branch > comparison logic operating during the 1A pipeline stage of > the branch. This allows the branch target address calculated > in the previous stage to be used for the instruction access in > the following 1I phase." So even if the execution of the > branch were inserting delay between the MTC0 and the > TLBWR as you seemed to assume, it might not be inserting > as much delay as you think. As you can see from the above examples, the IRIX handlers for these processors are indeed different. The R4000 and R4400 require more nops in other places: utlbmiss_prolog_up: [ 144] 0x88084600: 40 1a 20 00 mfc0 k0,context [ 144] 0x88084604: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 145] 0x88084608: 00 1a d0 43 sra k0,k0,1 utlbmiss: [ 219] 0x88084680: 8f 5b 00 00 lw k1,0(k0) [ 219] 0x88084684: 8f 5a 00 04 lw k0,4(k0) [ 223] 0x88084688: 00 1b d9 80 sll k1,k1,6 [ 223] 0x8808468c: 00 1b d9 82 srl k1,k1,6 [ 224] 0x88084690: 40 9b 10 00 mtc0 k1,tlblo [ 225] 0x88084694: 00 1a d1 80 sll k0,k0,6 [ 225] 0x88084698: 00 1a d1 82 srl k0,k0,6 [ 236] 0x8808469c: 40 9a 18 00 mtc0 k0,tlblo1 [ 237] 0x880846a0: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 238] 0x880846a4: 42 00 00 06 c0 tlbwr [ 239] 0x880846a8: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 239] 0x880846ac: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 239] 0x880846b0: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 246] 0x880846b4: 42 00 00 18 c0 eret Notice that the R4000 requires a nop after the mfc0 from $context, and also requires extra nops after the tlbwr. Also, here is the utlbmiss for the 250 MHZ R4400, with another workaround: utlbmiss_prolog_up: [ 144] 0x88084600: 40 1a 20 00 mfc0 k0,context [ 144] 0x88084604: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 145] 0x88084608: 00 1a d0 43 sra k0,k0,1 eutlbmiss3: [ 805] 0x88084830: 8f 5b 00 00 lw k1,0(k0) [ 805] 0x88084834: 8f 5a 00 04 lw k0,4(k0) [ 809] 0x88084838: 00 1b d9 80 sll k1,k1,6 [ 809] 0x8808483c: 00 1b d9 82 srl k1,k1,6 [ 810] 0x88084840: 40 80 10 00 mtc0 zero,tlblo [ 811] 0x88084844: 40 9b 10 00 mtc0 k1,tlblo [ 812] 0x88084848: 00 1a d1 80 sll k0,k0,6 [ 812] 0x8808484c: 00 1a d1 82 srl k0,k0,6 [ 824] 0x88084850: 40 80 18 00 mtc0 zero,tlblo1 [ 825] 0x88084854: 40 9a 18 00 mtc0 k0,tlblo1 [ 826] 0x88084858: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 827] 0x8808485c: 42 00 00 06 c0 tlbwr [ 828] 0x88084860: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 828] 0x88084864: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 828] 0x88084868: 00 00 00 00 nop [ 829] 0x8808486c: 42 00 00 18 c0 eret Emprirically, it appears that the manual is incorrect in regard to the number of nop instructions. The above sequences are known to work (via years of testing, and also via validation in discussions with people familiar with the hardware pipelines). > Thirdly, this whole thread underscores why "clever" solutions that > depend on implementation features of particular CPUs should > be avoided whenever possible. If you want to be assured of > getting a delay cycle in a MIPS instruction stream, you should > use a "SSNOP", (sll r0,r0,1 as opposed to the "nop" sll r0,r0,0), > which forces delays even in superscalar implementations. This is not realistic, given the number of workarounds required for various processors, unless you are willing to have most processors run quite a bit slower. (Extra cycles in utlbmiss are noticeable.) From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Wed Feb 16 14:46:25 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:46:16 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:34410 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:45:52 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA29802; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:41:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA47921 for linux-list; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:34:14 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA09461; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:34:09 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id OAA00314; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:34:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA13459; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:34:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA16552; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:34:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00bf01bf78ce$37cf6cc0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "William J. Earl" Cc: , , Subject: Re: Indy crashes Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:33:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >Emprirically, it appears that the [R5000] manual is incorrect in regard >to the number of nop instructions. The above sequences are known >to work (via years of testing, and also via validation in discussions >with people familiar with the hardware pipelines). In principle, I could check it against the RTL, but I probably won't bother. Many thanks for sharing the IRIX disassembly! > > Thirdly, this whole thread underscores why "clever" solutions that > > depend on implementation features of particular CPUs should > > be avoided whenever possible. If you want to be assured of > > getting a delay cycle in a MIPS instruction stream, you should > > use a "SSNOP", (sll r0,r0,1 as opposed to the "nop" sll r0,r0,0), > > which forces delays even in superscalar implementations. > > This is not realistic, given the number of workarounds required >for various processors, unless you are willing to have most processors >run quite a bit slower. (Extra cycles in utlbmiss are noticeable.) I agree that it is not realistic to hav a single binary TLB miss handler for all possible MIPS CPUs, but that's not what I was getting at. I just consider it unwise to use the fact that one "knows" that branches "always" delay three cycles to avoid hazards. Such tricks are obscurantist, and lead, in my experience, to errors. Kevin K. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 17 02:44:15 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:43:55 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:49235 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:43:35 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id CAA02731; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:39:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id CAA19375 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:33:51 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id CAA60900 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:33:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id CAA06218 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:33:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-23.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-23.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.23]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09185; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:33:39 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:24:27 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:24:27 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: 32-bit MIPS with > 512mb mem Message-ID: <20000216192427.A6330@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Is anybody using 32-bit MIPS CPUs which have more than 512mb of memory or to be more exact have RAM that isn't accessible via the KSEG0 / KSEG1 window? So far I haven't ever seen such a machine. For 64-bit CPUs the right thing to do is easy - use a 64-bit kernel. But for 32-bit CPUs the Intel highmem stuff in the memory managment now gives us a sane way to use the memory of such configuration with just a little bit of extra code. So if anybody wants support for such a configuration, please drop me a note. Thanks, Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 17 08:38:18 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:38:08 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:14152 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:37:50 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id IAA02491; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:33:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA90827 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id IAA16427 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:10 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id IAA03737 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:13 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-27.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-27.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.27]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24549; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:27:05 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:25:29 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:25:29 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Harald Koerfgen Cc: "Gleb O. Raiko" , linux-mips@fnet.fr, SGI Linux Subject: Re: -fno-strict-aliasing problem in the latest 2.3 Message-ID: <20000217142529.A5423@uni-koblenz.de> References: <38A91E19.CE7A9890@niisi.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 07:03:19PM +0100, Harald Koerfgen wrote: > On 15-Feb-00 Gleb O. Raiko wrote: > > There is a problem with the way main Makefile determines whether the > > compiler suports -fno-strict-aliasing. Namely, Makefile blindly gets $CC > > and tries to feed this option to it. Unfortunately, we set CC to proper > > mips[el]-linux-gcc later in arch/mips/Makefile, so the main Makefile > > just checks against native gcc. On RH6.1 with latest cross tool rpms > > installed, I get cc1: Invalid option `-fno-strict-aliasing' during > > comppilation, obviously. > > I am not exactly shure if it has ill side effects or if this may not be wanted > for some reason, but the attached patch fixes that for me. > > OK to commit? Yes, my solution is identical, so who commits first commits first :) Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 17 08:39:58 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:39:49 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:36169 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:39:37 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id IAA02845; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:35:06 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA32643 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:29:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id IAA34912 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:29:05 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id IAA03300 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:29:09 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-27.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-27.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.27]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24602; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:27:23 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:07:44 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:07:44 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000217170744.F5436@uni-koblenz.de> References: <003101bf786a$8c44d150$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <003101bf786a$8c44d150$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:42:29AM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > >Funky trick, isn't it? I don't have the the R4600 / R5000 docs at hand > >but as I understood them the above code should also work just perfect > >for them. > > No. Not as I read the specs. There are three problems here. > > First, the question is *not* one of no-ops between the TLBWR > and the ERET, but of no-ops between the MTC0 and the > TLBWR - re-read the quoted text above from my previous > message. So the code may well be broken as I conjectured > even if your assumption about the branch delay was valid. Exactly _that_ is the trick. The pipeline will execute the two extra branch penalty cycles _after_ the tlbwr instruction. That is exactly what according to my reading of the manual is necessary in order to guarantee correct operation. The c0 hazard between the mtc0 and tlbwr is also taken care of by the branch instruction itself, there is only one instruction necessary and as per r4k manual any instruction does. Yes, it's obfuscating. However David Miller put this in the code, I guess he took this trick from IRIX and I took it from him. I think it's highly unlikely that we all made the same mistake - and that nobody got bit by this for a the past few years. That said, the whole TLB exception handling is sometimes very performance sensitive. We've got good reason to optimize it at almost any price. So the whole thing should be rewritten anyway. > Second, the R5000 and R4600 piprlines are not as deep > as those of the R4000/4400. The R5000 documentation > calls out a branch implementation with a *single* delay cycle. > I quote: "The one cycle branch delay is a result of the branch > comparison logic operating during the 1A pipeline stage of > the branch. This allows the branch target address calculated > in the previous stage to be used for the instruction access in > the following 1I phase." So even if the execution of the > branch were inserting delay between the MTC0 and the > TLBWR as you seemed to assume, it might not be inserting > as much delay as you think. On the R4600 and R5000 the branch will be taken with a delay of a single cycle, that is the instruction in the branch delay slot and no additional penalty. That's exactly what we want. > Thirdly, this whole thread underscores why "clever" solutions that > depend on implementation features of particular CPUs should > be avoided whenever possible. That's why we have a number of implementations of TLB exception handlers. Let me reiterate that they are extremly performance sensitive. > If you want to be assured of > getting a delay cycle in a MIPS instruction stream, you should > use a "SSNOP", (sll r0,r0,1 as opposed to the "nop" sll r0,r0,0), > which forces delays even in superscalar implementations. > > >> So someone with the ability to reproduce the R5000 > >> problem should really try sticking a nop between the > >> mtc0 and the branch (sigh) to see if that stabilizes > >> the system. > > I still think this would be a good idea. Further, from Bill Earl's > comment on this same thread, it sounds like, to be conservative, > trap_init() in arch/mips/kernel/traps.c needs to detect the R5000 > case and patch in except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug instead > of except_vec0_r4000, and that furthermore a nop (or ssnop) > be added between the MTC0 and the branch of > except_vec0_r45k_bvahwbug. Indeed, and I'll do that. The fact that we do not handle this bug is simply an omission on my side. The conditions that need to be true for this bug to actually hit a system are sufficiently rare that I don't wonder why nobody ever got hit by this. > >Talking about CPU bugs - the R5230 and maybe it's relatives needs a nasty > >workaround. I think I only put the workaround into the Cobalt kernel. > >Of course IDT doesn't admit that this bug even exists ... > > Um, why should they, when IDT didn't do the R5230? ;-) > Seriously, did you mean to refer to the R323xx from IDT, > or to QED as the design house for the R5230? I have been > running 2.2.12 on an R5260 for months and it has been very > stable. To which bug and which workaround are you referring? Sorry, I permanently missattribute the R5230 to IDT even though the manual says different in big letters on the frontpage. This is the exception handler from the Cobalt kernel. /* * This version has a bug workaround for the Nevada. It seems * as if under certain circumstances the move from cp0_context * might produce a bogus result when the mfc0 instruction and * it's consumer are in a different cacheline or a load instruction, * probably any memory reference, is between them. This is * potencially slower than the R4000 version, so we use this * special version. */ LEAF(except_vec0_nevada) .set mips3 mfc0 k0, CP0_BADVADDR # Get faulting address mfc0 k1, CP0_TAGLO srl k0, k0, 22 # get pgd only bits sll k0, k0, 2 addu k1, k1, k0 # add in pgd offset lw k1, (k1) mfc0 k0, CP0_CONTEXT # get context reg srl k0, k0, 1 # get pte offset and k0, k0, 0xff8 addu k1, k1, k0 # add in offset lw k0, 0(k1) # get even pte lw k1, 4(k1) # get odd pte srl k0, k0, 6 # convert to entrylo0 mtc0 k0, CP0_ENTRYLO0 # load it srl k1, k1, 6 # convert to entrylo1 mtc0 k1, CP0_ENTRYLO1 # load it tlbwr # write random tlb entry nop nop eret # return from trap END(except_vec0_nevada) Note that this is a handler for Cobalt's 2.0 so it's not a drop in replacement for what we have in other kernels. What we observed was that the first access of the kernel to virtual memory, that was buffer_init() which was still using vmalloc'ed memory somehow was not being processed correctly. We've never observed that the bug hits at some other place. The explanation given in above comment is a possible explanation of what I suspect after playing with exception handler modifications for a few hours. Since the CPU is a blackbox for me I cannot guarantee that this explanation is correct or even close to reality. Two people at Cobalt did run independently into this problem and found that c0_context was corrupted. However when later on some of there other at Cobalt were talking to QED they denied the possible existence of a bug like this in their silicon. Having an empirically correct workaround for this problem we then stopped further tracking this problem. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 17 08:41:18 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:41:08 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:2634 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:41:02 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id IAA02967; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:36:31 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA76557 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:34 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id IAA55302; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id IAA06167; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:29 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-27.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-27.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.27]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24597; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:27:20 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:27:11 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:27:11 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: "William J. Earl" , linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Indy crashes Message-ID: <20000217152711.E5436@uni-koblenz.de> References: <00bf01bf78ce$37cf6cc0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <00bf01bf78ce$37cf6cc0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:33:33PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > > > Thirdly, this whole thread underscores why "clever" solutions that > > > depend on implementation features of particular CPUs should > > > be avoided whenever possible. If you want to be assured of > > > getting a delay cycle in a MIPS instruction stream, you should > > > use a "SSNOP", (sll r0,r0,1 as opposed to the "nop" sll r0,r0,0), > > > which forces delays even in superscalar implementations. > > > > This is not realistic, given the number of workarounds required > >for various processors, unless you are willing to have most processors > >run quite a bit slower. (Extra cycles in utlbmiss are noticeable.) > > I agree that it is not realistic to hav a single binary TLB miss handler > for all possible MIPS CPUs, but that's not what I was getting at. > I just consider it unwise to use the fact that one "knows" that branches > "always" delay three cycles to avoid hazards. Such tricks are > obscurantist, and lead, in my experience, to errors. Maybe but then again TLB exception handles aren't supposed to be hacked by Joe Random Hacker. There is more to know about the real silicon beaviour than what the manuals say. So for example some of the documentation regarding c0 hazards on the R4000 is plain wrong for certain CPU revisions. The TLB exception handlers really deserve a rewrite. Somebody at QED once called them the longest ones he has ever seen. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 17 15:48:44 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:48:34 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:65314 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:48:29 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id PAA12933; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:43:57 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA51265; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA73221 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:17:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA37189 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:17:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id PAA02779 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:17:10 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-4.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-4.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.4]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27832; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:16:50 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:44:32 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:44:32 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Gleb O. Raiko" Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: 32-bit MIPS with > 512mb mem Message-ID: <20000217174432.B5659@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000216192427.A6330@uni-koblenz.de> <38ABD8F8.E25D670F@niisi.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38ABD8F8.E25D670F@niisi.msk.ru> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 02:18:16PM +0300, Gleb O. Raiko wrote: > Not exactly > 512 mb, but related things. On Baget and DECstations, if > memory serves correctly, there is IO space mapped on KSEG2. Now, Baget > uses kseg2_allocate_io for it, DECstation also has something similar. IO > space on Jazz and Co. are located in virtual address window too, can't > remember where. In princple, access to such IO spaces may be done by > using highmem. I've only been refering to RAM where an efficient solution is much more difficult. Devices on some R4k machines are special anyway because sometimes they reside at physical addresses outside the lowest 4gb which means we cannot even address them using our current page tables. And changing those in general isn't a good idea unless we also have RAM at >= 512mb. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 17 17:20:34 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:20:25 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:63592 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:20:04 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id RAA02814; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:22:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA93780 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:52:51 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA11045 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:52:49 -0800 (PST) mail_from (bleggett@sofamordanek.com) Received: from mail.sofamordanek.com (server5.sofamordanek.com [208.14.121.5]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA09679 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:52:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (bleggett@sofamordanek.com) Received: by SERVER5 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:52:45 -0600 Message-ID: From: Bruce Leggett To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Linux on O2? Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:52:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Hello, How many folks are actually out there working on the Linux on mips port? Is there any work going on towards running Linux on the O2 specifically? cheers, bruce From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Thu Feb 17 17:42:15 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:42:05 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:10604 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:41:50 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id RAA04907; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:44:44 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA09866; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA54290 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:14:24 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA39251 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:14:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brett@madhouse.org) Received: from caligula.madhouse.org ([216.160.90.69]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id RAA03543 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:14:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brett@madhouse.org) Received: (qmail 1485 invoked by uid 509); 18 Feb 2000 01:14:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 01:14:25 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:14:25 -0800 (PST) From: brett To: Bruce Leggett cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes ----------------------------------------------- brett wagner | brett@madhouse.org get committed! | http://www.madhouse.org ----------------------------------------------- On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Bruce Leggett wrote: > Hello, > > How many folks are actually out there working on the Linux on mips port? > > Is there any work going on towards running Linux on the O2 specifically? > > cheers, > bruce > From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 01:48:06 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:47:58 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:41580 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:47:55 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id BAA03754; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:43:24 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id BAA19578 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:30:05 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id BAA01698 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:29:59 -0800 (PST) mail_from (flo@rfc822.org) Received: from noose.gt.owl.de (noose.gt.owl.de [62.52.19.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id BAA01933 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:29:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (flo@rfc822.org) Received: by noose.gt.owl.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id 99BDF7F5; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:29:39 +0100 (CET) Received: by paradigm.rfc822.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 09AED8FC4; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:25:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:25:05 +0100 From: Florian Lohoff To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Current cvs kernerl fails to compile for decstation Message-ID: <20000218102505.B369@paradigm.rfc822.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i Organization: rfc822 - pure communication Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Decstation: make[3]: Entering directory `/data/kernel/linux/drivers/net' gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/data/kernel/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fom it-frame-pointer -G 0 -mno-abicalls -fno-pic -mcpu=r4600 -mips2 -pipe -DEXPOR T_SYMTAB -c slhc.c In file included from slhc.c:74: /data/kernel/linux/include/net/tcp.h:343: #error HZ != 100 && HZ != 1024. make[3]: *** [slhc.o] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/data/kernel/linux/drivers/net' make[2]: *** [first_rule] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/data/kernel/linux/drivers/net' make[1]: *** [_subdir_net] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/kernel/linux/drivers' make: *** [_dir_drivers] Error 2 ------------ #if HZ == 100 #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (7+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) #elif HZ == 1024 #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (10+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) #else #error HZ != 100 && HZ != 1024. #endif ------------- Hrmpf ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-5241-470566 "Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots." From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 05:22:57 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:22:48 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:27674 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:22:26 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id FAA01591; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:25:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id FAA25715 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:07:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id FAA74480 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:06:59 -0800 (PST) mail_from (marc@mucom.co.il) Received: from biff.ibm.net.il (biff.ibm.net.il [192.115.72.164]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id FAA06064 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:07:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (marc@mucom.co.il) Received: from moose (host13.mucom.co.il [192.115.216.45]) by biff.ibm.net.il (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469B1121C; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:06:38 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:05:18 -0200 (GMT+2) From: Marc Esipovich To: Florian Lohoff Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Current cvs kernerl fails to compile for decstation In-Reply-To: <20000218102505.B369@paradigm.rfc822.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing > #if HZ == 100 > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (7+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) > #elif HZ == 1024 > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (10+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) > #else > #error HZ != 100 && HZ != 1024. > #endif > Without looking or knowing the source, my recommendation is, see where HZ is defined, and find out why it's not defined as either 100 or 1024, but you know that already ;) Marc. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 13:44:23 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:44:03 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:3850 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:43:43 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id NAA18559; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:39:11 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA78997 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:32 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA63562 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA06599 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:33 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.2]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01864; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:29:20 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:53:35 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:53:35 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: brett Cc: Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Message-ID: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:14:25PM -0800, brett wrote: > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 13:44:23 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:44:04 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:5642 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:43:47 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id NAA18566; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:39:16 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA53601 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:24 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA16719 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:22 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA09379 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.2]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01861; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:29:17 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:19:57 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:19:57 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Hiroyuki Machida Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Question about copy_from_user() Message-ID: <20000218121957.G5234@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000216183429L.machida@sm.sony.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000216183429L.machida@sm.sony.co.jp> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:34:29PM +0900, Hiroyuki Machida wrote: > I think I found a redundant code in copy_from_user() and > __copy_from_user() at current CVS asm-mips/uaccess.h. > > I think '*'-marked part in the definiton is obsolete and > redundant. It had to used in the exception fixup routine as > commented at arch/mips/lib/memcpy.S. (Of course the comment is also > obsolete, I think.) As you say $at is being used for the exception handling, so it obviously isn't redundant as you say. Or do I missunderstand what you were trying to express? You however made me stump over another bug, the definition of __MODULE_JAL in is wrong when compiling a module. In that case the generated code will clobber $at which actually should stay unchanged for the exception handling. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 14:19:23 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:19:13 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:57369 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:18:49 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA23247; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:14:18 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA18295; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:18:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA60650 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:32:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA48331; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:32:50 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA24858; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:32:44 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14508.41276.408855.988727@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:32:44 -0800 (PST) To: brett Cc: Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing brett writes: > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes ... The original Indigo was R3000-based. The I/O is an earlier generation of that used in Indy and Indigo2, so some of the driver work could be reused, but it is hard to find documentation at this point. The Indigo R4000 is pretty close to Indy and Indigo2, so it would not be too hard. On the other hand, there is no work done so far on supporting the "starter" graphics on the Indigo R4000. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 14:23:13 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:22:53 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:23324 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:22:34 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA23776; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:18:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA94442; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:22:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA60327 for linux-list; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:42:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA86120 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:42:21 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brett@madhouse.org) Received: from caligula.madhouse.org ([216.160.90.69]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id RAA01730 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:42:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brett@madhouse.org) Received: (qmail 1519 invoked by uid 509); 18 Feb 2000 01:42:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 01:42:25 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:42:25 -0800 (PST) From: brett To: "William J. Earl" cc: Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: <14508.41276.408855.988727@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing well all i care about is the R4000 indigos with "elan" graphics. i just happen to have a couple of them kicking around the shop. b ----------------------------------------------- brett wagner | brett@madhouse.org get committed! | http://www.madhouse.org ----------------------------------------------- On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, William J. Earl wrote: > brett writes: > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > ... > > The original Indigo was R3000-based. The I/O is an earlier generation > of that used in Indy and Indigo2, so some of the driver work could be reused, > but it is hard to find documentation at this point. The Indigo R4000 > is pretty close to Indy and Indigo2, so it would not be too hard. On the > other hand, there is no work done so far on supporting the "starter" graphics > on the Indigo R4000. > From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 14:25:13 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:25:04 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:45407 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:24:52 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA08310; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:27:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA03649 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:13:11 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA04493 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:13:09 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brett@madhouse.org) Received: from caligula.madhouse.org ([216.160.90.69]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id OAA02432 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:13:13 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brett@madhouse.org) Received: (qmail 2447 invoked by uid 509); 18 Feb 2000 22:13:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 22:13:11 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:13:11 -0800 (PST) From: brett To: Ralf Baechle cc: Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing why not put a couple of hackers under nda and ship them the source. b ----------------------------------------------- brett wagner | brett@madhouse.org get committed! | http://www.madhouse.org ----------------------------------------------- On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:14:25PM -0800, brett wrote: > > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... > > Ralf > From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 14:42:13 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:41:54 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:18274 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:41:31 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA06925; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:44:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA49263 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:30:16 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA69223 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:30:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id OAA06744 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:30:16 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.2]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05023; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 23:29:59 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:36:28 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:36:28 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Florian Lohoff Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Current cvs kernerl fails to compile for decstation Message-ID: <20000218223628.A24098@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000218102505.B369@paradigm.rfc822.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000218102505.B369@paradigm.rfc822.org> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:25:05AM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: > #if HZ == 100 > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (7+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) > #elif HZ == 1024 > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (10+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) > #else > #error HZ != 100 && HZ != 1024. > #endif How about making that: #if HZ == 100 #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (7+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) #elif HZ == 64 #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (6+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) #elif HZ == 1024 #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (10+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) #else #error HZ != 100 && HZ != 1024. #endif Without further reading the context that would by my first attempt. > Hrmpf ... Imagine, and tomorrow I'm going to break all networking drivers :-) Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 14:43:53 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:43:44 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:54882 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:43:31 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA03454; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:46:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA65407 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:29:54 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA25066 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:29:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id OAA05977 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:29:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.2]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05003; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 23:29:45 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:46:09 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:46:09 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Marc Esipovich Cc: Florian Lohoff , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Current cvs kernerl fails to compile for decstation Message-ID: <20000218224609.C24098@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000218102505.B369@paradigm.rfc822.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 03:05:18PM -0200, Marc Esipovich wrote: > > #if HZ == 100 > > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (7+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) > > #elif HZ == 1024 > > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (10+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) > > #else > > #error HZ != 100 && HZ != 1024. > > #endif > > Without looking or knowing the source, my recommendation is, see where HZ > is defined, and find out why it's not defined as either 100 or 1024, but > you know that already ;) It's 64 because it's not possible to program the DECstation RTC to 100Hz or 1024Hz. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 15:51:44 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:51:24 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:44615 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:50:58 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id PAA05656; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:46:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA44636; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA37322 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:34:40 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA72706; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:33:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA19290; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:32:58 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14509.54953.882688.741736@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:32:57 -0800 (PST) To: Ralf Baechle Cc: brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle writes: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:14:25PM -0800, brett wrote: > > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... We might be able to help out with some Indigo R4000 information, if someone is seriously interested, since the Indigo R4000 is close to Indigo2 and Indy. Indigo R3000 is probably hopeless (that development project was something like 12 years ago, after all). The graphics is a tougher problem, since all but Newport and Starter (Indigo) graphics have geometry engines with relatively complex interfaces. Ralf is quite right about the IRIX source. Since it is based on source licensed from SCO, Sun, and others, we do not have the right to hand it out without cost to others. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 16:56:55 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:56:45 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:63854 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:56:11 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id QAA02199; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA94119; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA15638 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:42:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA24278; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:41:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id QAA03574; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:42:01 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.2]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09782; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:41:25 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:03:31 +0100 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:03:31 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "William J. Earl" Cc: Ralf Baechle , brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Message-ID: <20000219010331.B19004@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> <14509.54953.882688.741736@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <14509.54953.882688.741736@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 03:32:57PM -0800, William J. Earl wrote: > Ralf Baechle writes: > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:14:25PM -0800, brett wrote: > > > > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > > > > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't > > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... > > We might be able to help out with some Indigo R4000 information, > if someone is seriously interested, since the Indigo R4000 is close to > Indigo2 and Indy. Indigo R3000 is probably hopeless (that development > project was something like 12 years ago, after all). The graphics is > a tougher problem, since all but Newport and Starter (Indigo) graphics > have geometry engines with relatively complex interfaces. > > Ralf is quite right about the IRIX source. Since it is based > on source licensed from SCO, Sun, and others, we do not have the right > to hand it out without cost to others. How about if myself and possibly others who currently are under NDA for SGI would support such projects by describing things via email where neither docs nor uncontaminated source is available and possibly some source where it's (C)-clean and managment aproved. Could something like that be made working? It's a shame that still nobody so far has had an actual chance to start working on an O2 port or something like that. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 19:58:55 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:58:36 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:29818 "EHLO convert rfc822-to-8bit pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:58:15 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id UAA02771; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:01:10 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id TAA74221 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:44:31 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id TAA22751; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:42:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA03086; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:42:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f From: "William J. Earl" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-ID: <14510.4410.177164.703052@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:42:50 -0800 (PST) To: Ralf Baechle Cc: brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: <20000219010331.B19004@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> <14509.54953.882688.741736@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> <20000219010331.B19004@uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle writes: ... > How about if myself and possibly others who currently are under NDA for SGI > would support such projects by describing things via email where > neither docs nor uncontaminated source is available and possibly some > source where it's (C)-clean and managment aproved. Could something like > that be made working? It's a shame that still nobody so far has had an > actual chance to start working on an O2 port or something like that. That should be ok; we have approval to do so (and I have sometimes supplied information on that basis), at least for Indigo, Indigo2, Indy, and Origin. (There was some question about Octane and Onyx, especially in regard to graphics.) If someone is seriously interested in doing an O2 port, I will help with explanations of the major issues, and we can make documentation available under the same restrictions as Indy documentation (no redistribution, no warranty, documentation is known to be inaccurate in various details). As I have described earlier, however, an O2 port is a major undertaking. (It would be quite an interesting and challenging project, but it is not simple.) Again, Indigo documentation, except via the method Ralf suggests, is going to be hard to come by. The O2 documentation, albeit somewhat inaccurate, is on the other hand readily available. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Fri Feb 18 20:42:28 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:42:19 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:29223 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:42:00 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id UAA27742; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:37:28 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id UAA50421 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:31:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id UAA27528 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:31:52 -0800 (PST) mail_from (marc@mucom.co.il) Received: from biff.ibm.net.il (biff.ibm.net.il [192.115.72.164]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id UAA08472 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:31:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (marc@mucom.co.il) Received: from moose (host13.mucom.co.il [192.115.216.45]) by biff.ibm.net.il (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525921004; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 06:31:43 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 06:30:22 -0200 (GMT+2) From: Marc Esipovich To: Ralf Baechle Cc: brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:14:25PM -0800, brett wrote: > > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... > > Ralf > Wow, what do you mean gone by now? are you saying there's no chance in hell to obtain the documentation? it can't be gone. Marc. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sat Feb 19 01:07:09 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:07:00 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:23402 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:06:41 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id BAA12393; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:02:10 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA88436 for linux-list; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:42 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA03764 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:40 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA07862 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:29:43 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-2.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.2]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01867; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:29:22 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:59:07 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:59:07 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: copy_from_user() bugfix Message-ID: <20000218135907.A21082@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AqsLC8rIMeq19msA" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Appended are two patches, one for Linux 2.2 and one for 2.3, which fix a bug copy_from_user / __copy_from_user. When used in a module these two functions may return a wrong result in the error case. Ralf --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="patch-2.2" Index: include/asm-mips/uaccess.h =================================================================== RCS file: /usr/src/cvs/linux/include/asm-mips/uaccess.h,v retrieving revision 1.16.2.1 diff -u -r1.16.2.1 uaccess.h --- uaccess.h 1999/10/21 21:26:27 1.16.2.1 +++ uaccess.h 2000/02/18 12:43:41 @@ -322,10 +322,12 @@ "move\t$4, %1\n\t" \ "move\t$5, %2\n\t" \ "move\t$6, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tnoreorder\n\t" \ ".set\tnoat\n\t" \ + __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ "addu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ ".set\tat\n\t" \ - __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ + ".set\treorder\n\t" \ "move\t%0, $6" \ : "=r" (__cu_len) \ : "r" (__cu_to), "r" (__cu_from), "r" (__cu_len) \ @@ -369,10 +371,12 @@ "move\t$4, %1\n\t" \ "move\t$5, %2\n\t" \ "move\t$6, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tnoreorder\n\t" \ ".set\tnoat\n\t" \ + __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ "addu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ ".set\tat\n\t" \ - __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ + ".set\treorder\n\t" \ "move\t%0, $6" \ : "=r" (__cu_len) \ : "r" (__cu_to), "r" (__cu_from), "r" (__cu_len) \ --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="patch-2.3" Index: include/asm-mips/uaccess.h =================================================================== RCS file: /usr/src/cvs/linux/include/asm-mips/uaccess.h,v retrieving revision 1.18 diff -u -r1.18 uaccess.h --- uaccess.h 1999/11/19 20:35:48 1.18 +++ uaccess.h 2000/02/18 12:44:43 @@ -323,10 +323,12 @@ "move\t$4, %1\n\t" \ "move\t$5, %2\n\t" \ "move\t$6, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tnoreorder\n\t" \ ".set\tnoat\n\t" \ + __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ "addu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ ".set\tat\n\t" \ - __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ + ".set\treorder\n\t" \ "move\t%0, $6" \ : "=r" (__cu_len) \ : "r" (__cu_to), "r" (__cu_from), "r" (__cu_len) \ @@ -370,10 +372,12 @@ "move\t$4, %1\n\t" \ "move\t$5, %2\n\t" \ "move\t$6, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tnoreorder\n\t" \ ".set\tnoat\n\t" \ + __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ "addu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ ".set\tat\n\t" \ - __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ + ".set\treorder\n\t" \ "move\t%0, $6" \ : "=r" (__cu_len) \ : "r" (__cu_to), "r" (__cu_from), "r" (__cu_len) \ Index: include/asm-mips64/uaccess.h =================================================================== RCS file: /usr/src/cvs/linux/include/asm-mips64/uaccess.h,v retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.4 uaccess.h --- uaccess.h 1999/11/19 20:35:49 1.4 +++ uaccess.h 2000/02/18 12:48:43 @@ -261,10 +261,12 @@ "move\t$4, %1\n\t" \ "move\t$5, %2\n\t" \ "move\t$6, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tnoreorder\n\t" \ ".set\tnoat\n\t" \ - "addu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ - ".set\tat\n\t" \ __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ + "daddu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tat\n\t" \ + ".set\treorder\n\t" \ "move\t%0, $6" \ : "=r" (__cu_len) \ : "r" (__cu_to), "r" (__cu_from), "r" (__cu_len) \ @@ -308,10 +310,12 @@ "move\t$4, %1\n\t" \ "move\t$5, %2\n\t" \ "move\t$6, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tnoreorder\n\t" \ ".set\tnoat\n\t" \ - "addu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ - ".set\tat\n\t" \ __MODULE_JAL(__copy_user) \ + "daddu\t$1, %2, %3\n\t" \ + ".set\tat\n\t" \ + ".set\treorder\n\t" \ "move\t%0, $6" \ : "=r" (__cu_len) \ : "r" (__cu_to), "r" (__cu_from), "r" (__cu_len) \ --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA-- From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sat Feb 19 04:39:21 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:39:01 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:35112 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:38:46 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id EAA25103; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:34:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id EAA27505 for linux-list; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:26:50 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id EAA52269 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:26:46 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from mail.ivm.net (mail.ivm.net [62.204.1.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id EAA02028 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:26:49 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from franz.no.dom (port33.duesseldorf.ivm.de [195.247.65.33]) by mail.ivm.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02745; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:26:14 +0100 X-To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20000218224609.C24098@uni-koblenz.de> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:26:54 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: "Harald Koerfgen" Organization: none From: Harald Koerfgen To: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: Current cvs kernerl fails to compile for decstation Cc: linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Florian Lohoff , Marc Esipovich Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On 18-Feb-00 Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 03:05:18PM -0200, Marc Esipovich wrote: > >> > #if HZ == 100 >> > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (7+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) >> > #elif HZ == 1024 >> > #define TCP_TW_RECYCLE_TICK (10+2-TCP_TW_RECYCLE_SLOTS_LOG) >> > #else >> > #error HZ != 100 && HZ != 1024. >> > #endif Well, I changed that to #if HZ == 100 || HZ == 128 HZ has been changed to 128 somewhere in the early 2.3.x series... > It's 64 because it's not possible to program the DECstation RTC to 100Hz > or 1024Hz. Well, 1024 Hz would be possible but certainly total overkill for a DECstation 2100 with a 12.5 Mhz R2000 :-) --- Regards, Harald From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sat Feb 19 04:39:21 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:39:11 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:35880 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:38:50 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id EAA25107; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:34:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id EAA83592 for linux-list; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:29:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id EAA74391; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:29:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from mail.ivm.net (mail.ivm.net [62.204.1.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id EAA05872; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:29:22 -0800 (PST) mail_from (Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de) Received: from franz.no.dom (port88.duesseldorf.ivm.de [195.247.65.88]) by mail.ivm.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02870; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:29:06 +0100 X-To: wje@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20000219010331.B19004@uni-koblenz.de> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:29:46 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: "Harald Koerfgen" Organization: none From: Harald Koerfgen To: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Cc: linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Bruce Leggett , brett , "William J. Earl" Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On 19-Feb-00 Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 03:32:57PM -0800, William J. Earl wrote: > >> Ralf Baechle writes: >> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 05:14:25PM -0800, brett wrote: >> > >> > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk >> > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes >> > >> > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't >> > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... >> >> We might be able to help out with some Indigo R4000 information, >> if someone is seriously interested, since the Indigo R4000 is close to >> Indigo2 and Indy. Indigo R3000 is probably hopeless (that development >> project was something like 12 years ago, after all). The graphics is >> a tougher problem, since all but Newport and Starter (Indigo) graphics >> have geometry engines with relatively complex interfaces. >> >> Ralf is quite right about the IRIX source. Since it is based >> on source licensed from SCO, Sun, and others, we do not have the right >> to hand it out without cost to others. > > How about if myself and possibly others who currently are under NDA for SGI > would support such projects by describing things via email where > neither docs nor uncontaminated source is available and possibly some > source where it's (C)-clean and managment aproved. Could something like > that be made working? It's a shame that still nobody so far has had an > actual chance to start working on an O2 port or something like that. Well, if someone is willing to ship me an O2 I'll see what I can do :-) --- Regards, Harald From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sat Feb 19 13:20:25 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:20:15 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:61227 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:19:55 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id NAA03254; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:22:51 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA51121; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA96301 for linux-list; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:04:32 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA37309; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:04:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brianm@moffetimages.com) Received: from moffetimages.com (alar.scruz.predictive.com [207.251.1.130]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA04867; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:04:28 -0800 (PST) mail_from (brianm@moffetimages.com) Received: from brianm.moffetimages.com (dhcp8.moffetimages.com [10.0.1.8]) by moffetimages.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA18338; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:04:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brianm@moffetimages.com) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000219130000.007af280@orac.moffetimages.com> X-Sender: brianm@orac.moffetimages.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:00:00 -0800 To: "Harald Koerfgen" , Ralf Baechle From: "Brian D. Moffet" Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Cc: linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Bruce Leggett , brett , "William J. Earl" In-Reply-To: References: <20000219010331.B19004@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing At 01:29 PM 2/19/00 +0100, Harald Koerfgen wrote: >Well, if someone is willing to ship me an O2 I'll see what I can do :-) I own an O2, and would be willing to work on a port, once my life gets more free time... :-) Of course I would need to get as much hardware doc as possible, but my time isn't gonna free up for at least another 6 - 9 months, probably longer... Brian Brian D. Moffet www.moffetimages.com brianm@ricochet.net photographer, pilot, musician, programmer From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sat Feb 19 16:00:05 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:59:56 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:52277 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:59:33 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id QAA09836; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:02:29 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA39830; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:59:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA82972 for linux-list; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:44:35 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA58751 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:44:32 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id PAA00751 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:44:36 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-10.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-10.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.10]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01473; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:44:18 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:14:45 +0100 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:14:45 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Marc Esipovich Cc: Ralf Baechle , brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Message-ID: <20000220001445.B23993@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000218035335.F5234@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 06:30:22AM -0200, Marc Esipovich wrote: > > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > > > > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't > > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... > > Wow, what do you mean gone by now? are you saying there's no chance in > hell to obtain the documentation? it can't be gone. Remember that SGI is a company that designs a large fraction of a system. So the designers of some piece of hardware and it's direct users, the kernel programmers have close to each other. For a lot of chips documentation never is written or at least never the same way so it would be the case for chips that would be marketed as such. It's obvious that this isn't good at all for Free Software where the access to high quality documentation is crucial. So now imagine what has happened to all the knowledge about a machine during the decade after it was developed? The product's development finishes, it get's marketed, the OS for gets some final bugfixes and even later it gets phased out. Silence. Meanwhile the brains behind the machine leave the company, tapes and paper go to some dark room where nobody still remembers them and the machine gets forgotten. Slow death of a computer ... Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sat Feb 19 16:44:05 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:43:56 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:65386 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:43:35 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id QAA06415; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:39:03 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id QAA37255 for linux-list; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:29:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA12508 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:29:09 -0800 (PST) mail_from (bhalchin@hotmail.com) Received: from hotmail.com (f196.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.196]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id QAA09371 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:29:14 -0800 (PST) mail_from (bhalchin@hotmail.com) Received: (qmail 38071 invoked by uid 0); 20 Feb 2000 00:29:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000220002901.38070.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 207.46.125.16 by www.hotmail.com with =?ISO-8859-1?Q?HTTP;=0D?= Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:29:01 PST X-Originating-IP: [207.46.125.16] From: "Bill Halchin" To: ralf@oss.sgi.com, marc@mucom.co.il Cc: brett@madhouse.org, bleggett@sofamordanek.com, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:29:01 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing This is precisely why I gave up on this project. I could not get any documentation, no machine access (if you don't already have). In my opinion, SGI Linux project must address this problem if they want to attract "outsiders", i.e. people who are currently outside the SGI user community, but what to contribute to a very interesting (!!)Open Source project. Regards, Bill Halchin >From: Ralf Baechle >To: Marc Esipovich >CC: Ralf Baechle , brett , >Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, > linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu >Subject: Re: Linux on O2? >Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:14:45 +0100 > >On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 06:30:22AM -0200, Marc Esipovich wrote: > > > > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of >talk > > > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > > > > > > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't > > > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... > > > > Wow, what do you mean gone by now? are you saying there's no chance in > > hell to obtain the documentation? it can't be gone. > >Remember that SGI is a company that designs a large fraction of a system. >So the designers of some piece of hardware and it's direct users, the >kernel programmers have close to each other. For a lot of chips >documentation never is written or at least never the same way so it would >be the case for chips that would be marketed as such. It's obvious that >this isn't good at all for Free Software where the access to high >quality documentation is crucial. > >So now imagine what has happened to all the knowledge about a machine >during the decade after it was developed? The product's development >finishes, it get's marketed, the OS for gets some final bugfixes and >even later it gets phased out. Silence. Meanwhile the brains behind >the machine leave the company, tapes and paper go to some dark room >where nobody still remembers them and the machine gets forgotten. > >Slow death of a computer ... > > Ralf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sat Feb 19 17:14:05 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:13:55 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:57970 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:13:36 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id RAA08002; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:09:04 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA05612 for linux-list; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:02:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA15566 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:02:44 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id RAA00567 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:02:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-10.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-10.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.10]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01181; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:02:22 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:01:36 +0100 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:01:36 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Bill Halchin Cc: marc@mucom.co.il, brett@madhouse.org, bleggett@sofamordanek.com, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Message-ID: <20000220020136.A25065@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000220002901.38070.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <20000220002901.38070.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 04:29:01PM -0800, Bill Halchin wrote: > This is precisely why I gave up on this project. I could not get any > documentation, no machine access (if you don't already have). In my > opinion, SGI Linux project must address this problem if they want to > attract "outsiders", i.e. people who are currently outside the SGI > user community, but what to contribute to a very interesting (!!)Open > Source project. You should consider that that porting Linus to all of SGI's machines is a pretty unrealistic project so with all optimism I don't think it's going to happen. Aside of that, SGI's Linux efforts are primarily about the future, not the past and that's good so. (Time to mention that I'm not speaking for SGI ...) Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sun Feb 20 11:23:45 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:23:36 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:12135 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:23:21 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA26229; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:18:50 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA54276; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id LAA36296 for linux-list; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:11:30 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA97253 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:11:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (geert@linux-m68k.org) Received: from pop01.chello.be (phoenix.chello.be [195.162.196.23]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id LAA06859 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:11:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (geert@linux-m68k.org) Received: from callisto.of.borg ([195.162.216.83]) by pop01.chello.be (InterMail vK.4.02.00.00 201-232-116 license f891beffebad5da1b2ebd034a97f2710) with ESMTP id <20000220191120.MFSQ15382.pop01@callisto.of.borg>; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:11:20 +0100 Received: from localhost (geert@localhost) by callisto.of.borg (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id UAA03014; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:11:20 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: callisto.of.borg: geert owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:11:19 +0100 (CET) From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Ralf Baechle cc: Marc Esipovich , brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: <20000220001445.B23993@uni-koblenz.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 06:30:22AM -0200, Marc Esipovich wrote: > > > > > Im still wainting to hear anything about the indigo i hear alot of talk > > > > about the indigo2 but nothing about the original blue boxes > > > > > > The problem is that the origin docs are gone by now and SGI can't > > > just go and ship the IRIX source to hackers ... > > > > Wow, what do you mean gone by now? are you saying there's no chance in > > hell to obtain the documentation? it can't be gone. > > Remember that SGI is a company that designs a large fraction of a system. > So the designers of some piece of hardware and it's direct users, the > kernel programmers have close to each other. For a lot of chips > documentation never is written or at least never the same way so it would > be the case for chips that would be marketed as such. It's obvious that > this isn't good at all for Free Software where the access to high > quality documentation is crucial. > > So now imagine what has happened to all the knowledge about a machine > during the decade after it was developed? The product's development > finishes, it get's marketed, the OS for gets some final bugfixes and > even later it gets phased out. Silence. Meanwhile the brains behind > the machine leave the company, tapes and paper go to some dark room > where nobody still remembers them and the machine gets forgotten. > > Slow death of a computer ... Unrelated, but similar: I'd like to port Linux/m68k to the Tektronix XP21 X-terminal I have. It has a 68030, TMS34020 and NE2000 Ethernet, but where do you find docs? Tektronix has sold their X-terminal division to NCD. If a machine is older than the web, AltaVista won't help you neither. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sun Feb 20 14:13:06 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:12:46 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:42600 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:12:25 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA03830; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:15:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA16161 for linux-list; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:57:54 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA09574 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:57:50 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA06454 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:57:43 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.16]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18708; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:57:22 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:05:15 +0100 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:05:14 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Ralf Baechle , Marc Esipovich , brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Message-ID: <20000220220514.A867@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000220001445.B23993@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:11:19PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Unrelated, but similar: I'd like to port Linux/m68k to the Tektronix XP21 > X-terminal I have. It has a 68030, TMS34020 and NE2000 Ethernet, but where do > you find docs? Tektronix has sold their X-terminal division to NCD. > > If a machine is older than the web, AltaVista won't help you neither. >From time to time I get email from people with ancient 68k-based SGIs asking for Linux ... Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sun Feb 20 14:42:16 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:42:06 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:3946 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:42:03 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA05479; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:45:00 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id OAA22072 for linux-list; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:31:33 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id OAA13710 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:31:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (richardh@penguin.nl) Received: from smtpf.casema.net (smtpf.casema.net [195.96.96.173]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id OAA08823 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:31:27 -0800 (PST) mail_from (richardh@penguin.nl) Received: (qmail 24393 invoked by uid 0); 20 Feb 2000 22:31:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO penguin.nl) (195.96.116.36) by smtpf.casema.net with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 22:31:18 -0000 Message-ID: <38B06B6D.A8DE9C5E@penguin.nl> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:32:13 +0100 From: Richard X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.9 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Baechle CC: Geert Uytterhoeven , Marc Esipovich , brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? References: <20000220001445.B23993@uni-koblenz.de> <20000220220514.A867@uni-koblenz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:11:19PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Unrelated, but similar: I'd like to port Linux/m68k to the Tektronix XP21 > > X-terminal I have. It has a 68030, TMS34020 and NE2000 Ethernet, but where do > > you find docs? Tektronix has sold their X-terminal division to NCD. > > > > If a machine is older than the web, AltaVista won't help you neither. > > >From time to time I get email from people with ancient 68k-based SGIs > asking for Linux ... > I've still got an iris 3030 which is an 68k based SGI. geert: It's even located in belgium :) Richard From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sun Feb 20 15:14:26 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:14:07 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:15979 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:13:39 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id PAA03692; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:16:37 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA90934 for linux-list; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:03:58 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA86354 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:03:54 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id PAA09776 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:03:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-16.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.16]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA22173; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:03:31 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:03:03 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:03:02 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Richard Cc: Ralf Baechle , Geert Uytterhoeven , Marc Esipovich , brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Message-ID: <20000221000302.C2189@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000220001445.B23993@uni-koblenz.de> <20000220220514.A867@uni-koblenz.de> <38B06B6D.A8DE9C5E@penguin.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <38B06B6D.A8DE9C5E@penguin.nl> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:32:13PM +0100, Richard wrote: > > > Unrelated, but similar: I'd like to port Linux/m68k to the Tektronix XP21 > > > X-terminal I have. It has a 68030, TMS34020 and NE2000 Ethernet, but where do > > > you find docs? Tektronix has sold their X-terminal division to NCD. > > > > > > If a machine is older than the web, AltaVista won't help you neither. > > > > >From time to time I get email from people with ancient 68k-based SGIs > > asking for Linux ... > > I've still got an iris 3030 which is an 68k based SGI. > > geert: It's even located in belgium :) That was a failure. Somebody will ring your door bell tonight :-) Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Sun Feb 20 18:21:52 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:21:42 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:40016 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:21:26 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (nodin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id SAA16545; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:16:54 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id SAA23092; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:20:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id SAA63764 for linux-list; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:05:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id SAA97409 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:05:16 -0800 (PST) mail_from (machida@sm.sony.co.jp) Received: from ns4.sony.co.jp (ns4.Sony.CO.JP [202.238.80.4]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id SAA09366 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:05:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (machida@sm.sony.co.jp) Received: from mail2.sony.co.jp (gatekeeper7.Sony.CO.JP [202.238.80.21]) by ns4.sony.co.jp (02/04/00) with ESMTP id LAA12748; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:05:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail1.sm.sony.co.jp (smail1.sm.sony.co.jp [43.11.253.1]) by mail2.sony.co.jp (3.7W99040614b) with ESMTP id LAA10466; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:05:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from imail.sm.sony.co.jp (imail.sm.sony.co.jp [43.27.209.5]) by smail1.sm.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/3.6W) with ESMTP id LAA27511; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:05:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from mach0.sm.sony.co.jp (mach0.sm.sony.co.jp [43.27.210.135]) by imail.sm.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/3.7W) with ESMTP id LAA13613; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:04:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost by mach0.sm.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/FreeBSD) with ESMTP id LAA26908; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:04:36 +0900 (JST) To: ralf@oss.sgi.com Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Question about copy_from_user() In-Reply-To: <20000218121957.G5234@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000216183429L.machida@sm.sony.co.jp> <20000218121957.G5234@uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.1 on Emacs 19.34 / Mule 2.3 (SUETSUMUHANA) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20000221110436M.machida@sm.sony.co.jp> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:04:36 +0900 From: Hiroyuki Machida X-Dispatcher: imput version 990905(IM130) Lines: 16 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing From: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: Question about copy_from_user() Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:19:57 +0100 > As you say $at is being used for the exception handling, so it obviously > isn't redundant as you say. Or do I missunderstand what you were trying > to express? Thanks, Ralf. I had miss-understood. I understood that $AT at the copy_from_user is still meaningful. --- Hiroyuki Machida From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 21 07:37:56 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:37:47 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:8233 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:37:20 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id HAA06286; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:40:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id HAA31167 for linux-list; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:19:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id HAA17963 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:19:20 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id HAA03160 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:19:04 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-15.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-15.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.15]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25248; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:18:36 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:58:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:58:20 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: CVS Update@oss.sgi.com: linux Message-ID: <20000221125820.A11469@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000219003324Z305163-11638+186@oss.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:54:45AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Modified files: > > include/asm-mips: uaccess.h > > include/asm-mips64: uaccess.h > > > > Log message: > > Fix copy_from_user() in modules and 64-bit kernel. > > Now the assembler complains with > > Warning: Used $at without ".set noat" I just tried to build an Indy kernel and did not get this warning. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 21 11:59:37 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:59:28 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:26738 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:59:10 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA22925; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:54:37 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA54293; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id LAA37361 for linux-list; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:43:48 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA51581 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:43:44 -0800 (PST) mail_from (richardh@penguin.nl) Received: from smtpe.casema.net (smtpe.casema.net [195.96.96.172]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id LAA09994 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:43:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (richardh@penguin.nl) Received: (qmail 28688 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2000 19:43:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO penguin.nl) (195.96.117.10) by smtpe.casema.net with SMTP; 21 Feb 2000 19:43:30 -0000 Message-ID: <38B19593.7A694CE4@penguin.nl> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:44:19 +0100 From: Richard X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.9 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Baechle CC: Geert Uytterhoeven , Marc Esipovich , brett , Bruce Leggett , linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Linux on O2? References: <20000220001445.B23993@uni-koblenz.de> <20000220220514.A867@uni-koblenz.de> <38B06B6D.A8DE9C5E@penguin.nl> <20000221000302.C2189@uni-koblenz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:32:13PM +0100, Richard wrote: > > > > > Unrelated, but similar: I'd like to port Linux/m68k to the Tektronix XP21 > > > > X-terminal I have. It has a 68030, TMS34020 and NE2000 Ethernet, but where do > > > > you find docs? Tektronix has sold their X-terminal division to NCD. > > > > > > > > If a machine is older than the web, AltaVista won't help you neither. > > > > > > >From time to time I get email from people with ancient 68k-based SGIs > > > asking for Linux ... > > > > I've still got an iris 3030 which is an 68k based SGI. > > > > geert: It's even located in belgium :) > > That was a failure. Somebody will ring your door bell tonight :-) > I'd be delighted :) From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 21 13:51:28 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:51:09 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:43032 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:50:49 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id NAA03042; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:46:17 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA97608 for linux-list; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:38:43 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA77173 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:38:14 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA08773 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:38:09 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-13.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-13.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.13]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11990; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:37:49 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:03:52 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:03:52 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: CVS Update@oss.sgi.com: linux Message-ID: <20000221190352.B15668@uni-koblenz.de> References: <20000221125820.A11469@uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:46:52PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > I guess the problem is the nested .set noat/at construct, where __MODULE_JAL > does .set at while copy_from_user() assumes we're still in noat mode? Yep, looking at the assembler code your report immediately made sense. Fix going to CVS as I write this. Ralf From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 21 18:59:51 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:59:42 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:20841 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:59:20 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id TAA09728; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:02:15 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id SAA74829 for linux-list; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:45:38 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id SAA67878 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:45:35 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA01121 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:45:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:45:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220245.SAA01121@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liveoak.engr.sgi.com: wje set sender to wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Ralf Baechle cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: CVS Update@oss.sgi.com: linux In-Reply-To: <20000221125820.A11469@uni-koblenz.de> Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:54:45AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Modified files: > > > include/asm-mips: uaccess.h > > > include/asm-mips64: uaccess.h > > > > > > Log message: > > > Fix copy_from_user() in modules and 64-bit kernel. > > > > Now the assembler complains with > > > > Warning: Used $at without ".set noat" > > I just tried to build an Indy kernel and did not get this warning. I guess it depends on the configuration. From looking at the list of files I got complaints for, I do believe you didn't get them when building for an Indy. Can you try to compile the module for the loop block device? The problem happens near the call to copy_from_user() in loop_set_status(). The generated code is (warning position indicated with `>>>'): .set noreorder .set noat .set noat la $1, __copy_user jalr $1 .set at >>> addu $1, $13, $7 .set at .set reorder move $7, $6 #NO_APP $L1492: .set noreorder .set nomacro bne $7,$0,$L1502 li $2,-14 # 0xfffffff2 .set macro .set reorder I guess the problem is the nested .set noat/at construct, where __MODULE_JAL does .set at while copy_from_user() assumes we're still in noat mode? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE) Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55 Voice +32-2-7248638 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 28 02:01:21 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:01:11 -0800 Received: from ip214.dallas13.tx.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.27.164.214]:30216 "HELO www.alltheplanet.com") by oss.sgi.com with SMTP id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:01:08 -0800 From: Subject: ADV: Accept Credit Cards Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:25:51 Message-Id: <859.575359.604457@www.alltheplanet.com> To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing To be removed from our mailing list, please reply with "Remove" in the subject line. Your business should be accepting Credit Cards from your customers! Over 97% of all sales on the internet are done with Credit Cards. Over 92% of mail-orders and telephone-orders are done with Credit Cards. If you don't take Credit Cards, 9 out of every 10 potential customers can't do business with you. We specialize in on-line businesses, mail-order and telephone order businesses, start-ups, in-home businesses as well as retail locations. In other words, we specialize in YOUR business. Call 661-288-2842 now, and in a few days, you'll be accepting Credit Cards. 661-288-2842. We do Web design too!! From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 28 04:43:44 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:43:35 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:40300 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:43:17 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id EAA02877; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:46:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id EAA39674 for linux-list; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:21:04 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id EAA65595 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:20:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id EAA02775 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:21:00 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id EAA08242; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:20:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id EAA25223; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:20:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010101bf81e6$9c546120$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Linux/MIPS fnet" , "Linux/MIPS algor" , "Linux SGI" Subject: Kernel/User Memory Access and Original Sin Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:23:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing My apologies to those of you who will get three copies of this, but I wanted to reach, to the extent possible, the full MIPS/Linux community. I began running the "crashme" test program, available at http://people.delphi.com/gjc/crashme.html, on a MIPS/Linux configuration, a week or so ago. It has been a useful exercise, but one that opens up a real pandora's box. Note that I've been running it on our 2.2.12 kernel for embedded MIPS chips, and not on 2.3.x for SGI platforms, but my findings are relevant to both environments. In addition to turning up a couple of bugs in the FPU emulator interface to the kernel - the sort of thing I was looking for - crashme turned up a problem with kernel access to the user memory map that looks to me to be very serious. I have implemented a fix, but it casts doubt on the wisdom of the general Linux scheme for handling kernel access to user memory - hence the "original sin" reference above. Linux, as written for the x86, goes very heavily for inlining. Rather than call specially protected copyin/copyout sorts of routines for manipulating user memory, Linux uses inline macros (copy_from_user/copy_to_user, etc.) that depend on doing explicit checks of the address space for correctness. This is tenable if and only if the explicit check is both cheap and reliable. On the x86, this check, __range_ok, is accomplished with a quick check of segment registers, and may or may not actually be reliable, depending on the x86 VM implementation. In the MIPS 2.2 and 2.3 kernels, the check, __access_ok, is a simple heuristic that verifies that the access does not reference kernel memory, nor is it greater than 2GB in size. That's cheap, but not reliable. The primary failure mode I observed was where signal.c blows up when trying to set up a signal context on a corrupted user stack, but the problem is more pervasive. I have succeeded in writing what seems to be a "real" __access_ok routine, but it is much more heavyweight than the old heuristic. Not only does it need to check the virtual address against the process' VMAs, but it needs to deal with accesses that span multiple, contiguous VMAs (such as those the xmalloc returns to /bin/cat!), and it needs to deal with accesses to addresses to which a stack VMA will be grown. In my opinion, the result is too big to put in ubiquitous in-line macros, so it became a function (in mm/fault.c for want of a better home), and the macros now call the function. The system handles the previously fatal test cases, and now I need to make some measurements of the effects on performance. I'll post patches/sources to the web shortly, but for the moment, I'm curious as to the opinions of other kernel hackers in the MIPS/Linux community. Is it acceptable to allow corrupted processes to cause system panics? Is speed more important than stability to you and your users? At MIPS, we need the OS to be as stable as possible, so that we can stress new chips on it with some confidence that the chips will break before the OS does, and we would happily pay a significant penalty in performance for that confidence. Those who re-use our code for embedded Linux applications, on the other hand, need stability *and* performance. I have formed the opinion that the "correct" way to deal with kernel/user memory accesses in Linux, at least for MIPS, is to take a model much closer to System V and BSD than to the Linux/x86 tradition. Instead of performing range checks at each reference, protected routines (copyin/copyout, et al.) need to be set up to perform the necessary accesses in kernel mode, but with the appropriate VM hooks so that any page faults are handled as if for the user. This way, the overhead of checking VMAs, etc, is only incurred if something out of the ordinary happens, and not on every access. Is there a good reason *not* to do things this way? __ Kevin D. Kissell MIPS Technologies European Architecture Lab kevink@mips.com Tel. +33.4.78.38.70.67 FAX. +33.4.78.38.70.68 From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 28 05:42:55 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:42:45 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:32880 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:42:24 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id FAA03326; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:45:29 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id FAA88933 for linux-list; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:27:29 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id FAA78186 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:27:26 -0800 (PST) mail_from (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) Received: from the-village.bc.nu (lightning.swansea.uk.linux.org [194.168.151.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id FAA05033 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:27:34 -0800 (PST) mail_from (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) Received: from alan by the-village.bc.nu with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PQCX-0001uL-00; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:27:05 +0000 Subject: Re: Kernel/User Memory Access and Original Sin To: kevink@mips.com (Kevin D. Kissell) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:27:02 +0000 (GMT) Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr (Linux/MIPS fnet), linux-porters@algor.co.uk (Linux/MIPS algor), linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (Linux SGI) In-Reply-To: <010101bf81e6$9c546120$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> from "Kevin D. Kissell" at Feb 28, 2000 01:23:17 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing > Linux, as written for the x86, goes very heavily for inlining. > Rather than call specially protected copyin/copyout sorts > of routines for manipulating user memory, Linux uses inline > macros (copy_from_user/copy_to_user, etc.) that depend on Its up to the port how it is done. Most of them are non inline for x86 for example. > __access_ok routine, but it is much more heavyweight > than the old heuristic. Not only does it need to check the > virtual address against the process' VMAs, but it needs Its broken if it does that. The process VMA may change on an SMP box or during fault handling sleeps. __access_ok has one purpose. To verify the address range given is entirely sensible to feed to __copy_*_user. If you have to do handling the complex way (eg if your cpu design requires it) then __access_ok can just return 1 and the __copy_*_user - inline or out of line - can do all the work. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 28 06:07:55 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:07:45 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:63091 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:07:34 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id GAA06971; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:10:40 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id FAA20161 for linux-list; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:53:45 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id FAA03116 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:53:37 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id FAA06442 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:53:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (kevink@mips.com) Received: from newman.mips.com (newman [206.31.31.8]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id FAA09607; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from satanas (satanas [192.168.236.12]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id FAA26863; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:53:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <017a01bf81f3$92709130$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> From: "Kevin D. Kissell" To: "Alan Cox" Cc: "Linux/MIPS fnet" , "Linux/MIPS algor" , "Linux SGI" Subject: Re: Kernel/User Memory Access and Original Sin Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:56:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing >__access_ok has one purpose. To verify the address range given is entirely >sensible to feed to __copy_*_user. If you have to do handling the complex >way (eg if your cpu design requires it) then __access_ok can just return 1 >and the __copy_*_user - inline or out of line - can do all the work. Thanks. I think I have localized the hole in the signal handling that would have defeated these mechanisms, though another related failure that was also solved by the sledgehammer __access_ok remains mysterious. I'll apply the more localized fix and repeat the crashme experiments... Kevin K. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 28 19:22:38 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:22:29 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:47186 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:22:13 -0800 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id TAA03888; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:25:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/980728.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id TAA42333; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:22:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id TAA51410 for linux-list; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:05:22 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from liveoak.engr.sgi.com (liveoak.engr.sgi.com [163.154.5.24]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id TAA45992 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:05:19 -0800 (PST) mail_from (wje@liveoak.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from wje@localhost) by liveoak.engr.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA10608 for linux@engr.sgi.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:05:15 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:05:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200002290305.TAA10608@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Bastiaan.N.Veelo@immtek.ntnu.no To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com cc: Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de Subject: Re: Linux on O2? X-Authentication-Warning: jeeves.stud.ntnu.no: bastiaan owned process doing -bs Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing I subscribed to this list a minute ago because I am a Linux enthousiast and can get hold of used O2's for little money. I just read the mail archive for this month and was happy to see that although Linux for O2 is not there yet, there is a lot of talk about it. A newbie-question: how different is an O2 with R5000 processor from an Indy? Maybe graphics is different, but can't the Linux Indy port be made to run on an O2 of this sort at all? Harald Koerfgen wrote: > Well, if someone is willing to ship me an O2 I'll see what I can do :-) The O2's I can get hold of, if I am well informed, come with an R5000 processor, 128MB RAM, 2GB SCSI, soundcard, keyboard and 21" Monitor for 5000 NOK (that's about 1250 DEM or 625 USD!). Though I live in Norway I visit Germany from time to time and transport is therefore a lesser problem. Bastiaan. From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Mon Feb 28 19:48:29 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:48:19 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:23383 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:47:59 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id TAA28636; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:43:25 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id TAA92869 for linux-list; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:30:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id TAA04379 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:30:44 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu) Received: from callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu (callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.122]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id TAA00504 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:30:53 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu) Received: (qmail 25885 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 03:30:41 -0000 Received: from ubppp-246-032.ppp-net.buffalo.edu (jsimmons@128.205.246.32) by callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 03:30:40 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:39:37 -0500 (EST) From: James Simmons X-Sender: jsimmons@maxwell.futurevision.com To: Bastiaan.N.Veelo@immtek.ntnu.no cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de Subject: Re: Linux on O2? In-Reply-To: <200002290305.TAA10608@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 Bastiaan.N.Veelo@immtek.ntnu.no wrote: > I subscribed to this list a minute ago because I am a Linux enthousiast > and can get hold of used O2's for little money. I just read the mail > archive for this month and was happy to see that although Linux for O2 is > not there yet, there is a lot of talk about it. > > A newbie-question: how different is an O2 with R5000 processor from an > Indy? Maybe graphics is different, but can't the Linux Indy port be made > to run on an O2 of this sort at all? > > Harald Koerfgen wrote: > > Well, if someone is willing to ship me an O2 I'll see what I can do :-) > > The O2's I can get hold of, if I am well informed, come with an R5000 > processor, 128MB RAM, 2GB SCSI, soundcard, keyboard and 21" Monitor for > 5000 NOK (that's about 1250 DEM or 625 USD!). Though I live in Norway I > visit Germany from time to time and transport is therefore a lesser > problem. WoW!!! Can I get one for this price? Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" James Simmons (o_ fbdev/gfx developer (o_ (o_ //\ http://www.linux-fbdev.org (/)_ (/)_ V_/_ http://linuxgfx.sourceforge.net From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 29 10:53:07 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:52:56 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:35707 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:52:46 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id KAA16283; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:48:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA82874 for linux-list; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:40:39 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA26141 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:40:12 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jallan@freeuk.com) Received: from scrabble.freeuk.net (scrabble.freeuk.net [212.126.144.6]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id KAA04483 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:40:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (jallan@freeuk.com) From: jallan@freeuk.com Received: from [212.126.144.28] (helo=freeuk.com) by scrabble.freeuk.net with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12PrY8-0000J5-00; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:39:12 +0000 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:39:12 z (GMT) To: jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu Cc: jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu, Bastiaan.N.Veelo@immtek.ntnu.no, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de Subject: Re: Linux on O2? X-Mailer: AtDot 2.0.1 X-URL: http://www.freeuk.net/ Message-Id: Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing You wrote: > From: James Simmons > > The O2's I can get hold of, if I am well informed, come with an R5000 > > processor, 128MB RAM, 2GB SCSI, soundcard, keyboard and 21" Monitor for > > 5000 NOK (that's about 1250 DEM or 625 USD!). Though I live in Norway I > > visit Germany from time to time and transport is therefore a lesser > > problem. > > WoW!!! Can I get one for this price? Make that wow from me too! I am interested as well! Did I miss the original repy to my inquiry about Linux on an O2 though? Thanks. John Allan From owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Tue Feb 29 19:02:03 2000 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:01:54 -0800 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:8974 "EHLO deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:01:34 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id SAA19999; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:57:00 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id SAA45580 for linux-list; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:47:00 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id SAA09609 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:46:57 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (mailhost.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.1]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id SAA07639 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:46:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: from cacc-5.uni-koblenz.de (cacc-5.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.131.5]) by mailhost.uni-koblenz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23639; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 03:46:49 +0100 (MET) Received: by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:56:01 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:56:00 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Bastiaan.N.Veelo@immtek.ntnu.no Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de Subject: Re: Linux on O2? Message-ID: <20000301025600.A1510@uni-koblenz.de> References: <200002290305.TAA10608@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200002290305.TAA10608@liveoak.engr.sgi.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linuxmips-outgoing On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 07:05:15PM -0800, Bastiaan.N.Veelo@immtek.ntnu.no wrote: > A newbie-question: how different is an O2 with R5000 processor from an > Indy? Maybe graphics is different, but can't the Linux Indy port be made > to run on an O2 of this sort at all? It's very different but the port should yet be reasonably easy. Ralf