2010/1/26 Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Artyom Tarasenko > <atar4q...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Because their use should update the PTE dirty bits.
update !=always set. Where is it implemented? I guess the code is shared between multiple architectures. Is there a way to trace at what point certain page is getting dirty? Since it's not the bypass ASIs it must be something else. >>> 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. -- Regards, Artyom Tarasenko solaris/sparc under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/