On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 02:40:15PM +0000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> I'd like to move forward with parallel fault handling.  This has been
> properly tested on amd64, i386 and arm64.  sparc64 pmap needs some love
> and enabling this will expose the existing bugs.
> 
> My plan is to enable parallel faults on amd64 and arm64 as a first step
> then i386 because it is where swapping is properly exercised. 
> 
> Does that sound sane, do you agree with this approach?

I'm fine with this approach if we don't leave it like this forever. I'm
not sure if it is only the sparc64 pmap that needs love.

In any case this is the right time to push forward. OK claudio@
 
> Index: uvm/uvm_fault.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/uvm/uvm_fault.c,v
> diff -u -p -r1.171 uvm_fault.c
> --- uvm/uvm_fault.c	11 Sep 2025 17:04:35 -0000	1.171
> +++ uvm/uvm_fault.c	12 Nov 2025 14:09:52 -0000
> @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ uvm_fault(vm_map_t orig_map, vaddr_t vad
>  	flt.access_type = access_type;
>  	flt.narrow = FALSE;		/* assume normal fault for now */
>  	flt.wired = FALSE;		/* assume non-wired fault for now */
> -#if notyet
> +#if defined(__amd64__) || defined(__arm64__)
>  	flt.upper_lock_type = RW_READ;
>  	flt.lower_lock_type = RW_READ;	/* shared lock for now */
>  #else
> 
> 

-- 
:wq Claudio