[PATCH mm-unstable v1 11/26] microblaze/mm: support __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE

[David Hildenbrand]

On 27.02.23 20:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 6:01 PM David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>     /*
>>>>>>      * Externally used page protection values.
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> index 42f5988e998b..7e3de54bf426 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h
> 
>>>>>>      * - All other bits of the PTE are loaded into TLBLO without
>>>>>>      *  * modification, leaving us only the bits 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30 for
>>>>>>      * software PTE bits.  We actually use bits 21, 24, 25, and
>>>>>> @@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ extern pte_t *va_to_pte(unsigned long address);
>>>>>>     #define _PAGE_ACCESSED 0x400   /* software: R: page referenced */
>>>>>>     #define _PMD_PRESENT   PAGE_MASK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +/* We borrow bit 24 to store the exclusive marker in swap PTEs. */
>>>>>> +#define _PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE    _PAGE_DIRTY
>>>>>
>>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY is 0x80, so this is also bit 7, thus the new comment is
>>>>> wrong?
>>>>
>>>> In the example, I use MSB-0 bit numbering (which I determined to be
>>>> correct in microblaze context eventually, but I got confused a couple a
>>>> times because it's very inconsistent). That should be MSB-0 bit 24.
>>>
>>> Thanks, TIL microblaze uses IBM bit numbering...
>>
>> I assume IBM bit numbering corresponds to MSB-0 bit numbering, correct?
> 
> Correct, as seen in s370 and PowerPC manuals...

Good, I have some solid s390x background, but thinking about the term 
"IBM PC" made me double-check that we're talking about the same thing ;)

> 
>> I recall that I used the comment above "/* Definitions for MicroBlaze.
>> */" as an orientation.
>>
>> 0  1  2  3  4  ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
>> RPN.....................  0  0 EX WR ZSEL.......  W  I  M  G
> 
> Indeed, that's where I noticed the "unconventional" numbering...
> 
>> So ... either we adjust both or we leave it as is. (again, depends on
>> what the right thing to to is -- which I don't know :) )
> 
> It depends whether you want to match the hardware documentation,
> or the Linux BIT() macro and friends...

The hardware documentation, so we should be good.

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb