Re: [PATCH 4/4] powerpc/64s: Support shrinking the SLB for debugging

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>]

Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> writes:

> On machines with 1TB segments and a 32-entry SLB it's quite hard to
> cause sufficient SLB pressure to trigger bugs caused due to badly
> timed SLB faults.
>
> We have seen this in the past and a few years ago added the
> disable_1tb_segments command line option to force the use of 256MB
> segments. However even this allows some bugs to slip through testing
> if the SLB entry in question was recently accessed.
>
> So add a new command line parameter for debugging which shrinks the
> SLB to the minimum size we can support. Currently that size is 3, two
> bolted SLBs and 1 for dynamic use. This creates the maximal SLB
> pressure while still allowing the kernel to operate.
>

Should we put this within DEBUG_VM? 

Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> 


> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c
> index 61450a9cf30d..0f33e28f97da 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/slb.c
> @@ -506,10 +506,24 @@ void switch_slb(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
>  	asm volatile("isync" : : : "memory");
>  }
>  
> +static bool shrink_slb = false;
> +
> +static int __init parse_shrink_slb(char *p)
> +{
> +	shrink_slb = true;
> +	slb_set_size(0);

Why do we need call slb_set_size(0) here? htab_dt_scan_seg_sizes should 
find the shirnk_slb = true?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("shrink_slb", parse_shrink_slb);
> +
>  static u32 slb_full_bitmap;
>  
>  void slb_set_size(u16 size)
>  {
> +	if (shrink_slb)
> +		size = SLB_NUM_BOLTED + 1;
> +
>  	mmu_slb_size = size;
>  
>  	if (size >= 32)
> -- 
> 2.20.1

-aneesh