2010/1/24 Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com>: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Artyom Tarasenko > <atar4q...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> All solaris versions which currently boot (from cd) regularly produce >> buckets of >> "hsfs_putpage: dirty HSFS page" messages. >> >> High Sierra is a pretty old and stable stuff, so it is possible that >> the code is similar to OpenSolaris. >> I looked in debugger, and the function calls hierarchy looks pretty similar. >> >> Now in the OpenSolaris source code there is a nice comment: >> http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vnops.c#1758 >> /* >> * Normally pvn_getdirty() should return 0, which >> * impies that it has done the job for us. >> * The shouldn't-happen scenario is when it returns 1. >> * This means that the page has been modified and >> * needs to be put back. >> * Since we can't write on a CD, we fake a failed >> * I/O and force pvn_write_done() to destroy the page. >> */ >> if (pvn_getdirty(pp, flags) == 1) { >> cmn_err(CE_NOTE, >> "hsfs_putpage: dirty HSFS page"); >> >> Now the question: does the problem have to do with qemu caches >> (non-)emulation? >> Can it be that we mark non-dirty pages dirty? Or does qemu always mark >> pages dirty exactly to avoid cache emulation? >> >> Otherwise it means something else goes astray and Solaris guest really >> modifies the pages it shouldn't. >> >> Just wonder what to dig first, MMU or IRQ emulation (the two most >> obvious suspects). > > Maybe the stores via MMU bypass ASIs
why bypass stores? What about the non-bypass ones? > should use > st[bwlq]_phys_notdirty. Seems that st[bw]_phys_notdirty are not implemeted yet? I've changed [lq] for asi 0x20 and 21-2f and see no difference. Also I put some debug printfs and see that none of these ASIs is called after the Solaris kernel is loaded. > It can break display handling, though. -- Regards, Artyom Tarasenko solaris/sparc under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/