Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] alt_itlb_miss?

[Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:05:49AM +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:

> >   FWIW, here's some more data about the system state when I hit the
> >FORCE_CRASH in alt_itlb_miss (this is for the case of dom0 doing
> >efi.get_time via fw_hypercall):
> >
> >cr.ifa = 0xf00000003ea57570
> >cr.iip = 0xf00000003ea57570
> >b0 = 0xf000000004086020 (virt_get_time+0x80)
> >psr.cpl = 0
> >
> >rr0 = 0x0000000000100038
> >rr1 = 0x0000000001000439
> >rr2 = 0x0000000002000439
> >rr3 = 0x0000000003000439
> >rr4 = 0x0000000004000439
> >rr5 = 0x0000000005000439
> >rr6 = 0x0000000006000439
> >rr7 - 0x0000000007000439
> >
> >The PAL ITR is at 0xf00000003f000000.  The system I'm typically using
> >has the EFI runtime section covered by the PAL ITR.  Thanks,
> >
> >     Alex
> >
> 
> So the logic to support identity mapped ITC insertion should be 
> added to itlb_miss handler, however the interesting thing is why 
> you encounter it in alt_itlb_miss handler. As above debug output, 
> the rr7 is also configured with vhpt table enabled...

PSR.dt = 0 or PSR.ic = 0?
If so, the assumption that alt_itlb_miss handler dosn't occur is incorrect.

-- 
yamahata

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