On 27/11/25(Thu) 19:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 26/11/25(Wed) 12:32, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > sparc64 is subtly broken since uvm_purge() is running in parallel.  It
> > became obvious that the architecture requires more MD work before more
> > parts of UVM can run in parallel. 
> > 
> > That said, such breakages are not helping.  So here's a diff I sent
> > before release to not run uvm_purge() w/o KERNEL_LOCK() on sparc64.
> > I'd like to get it in.  Anyone interested in exposing pmap/UVM races
> > on sparc64 will now where to start.
> 
> Now with the corresponding assert removed, found the hard way by
> deraadt@.
> 
> ok?

Anyone?

> Index: uvm/uvm_glue.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/uvm/uvm_glue.c,v
> diff -u -p -r1.94 uvm_glue.c
> --- uvm/uvm_glue.c	11 Sep 2025 15:28:40 -0000	1.94
> +++ uvm/uvm_glue.c	27 Nov 2025 18:00:47 -0000
> @@ -315,8 +315,6 @@ uvm_purge(void)
>  	struct proc *p = curproc;
>  	struct vmspace *vm = p->p_vmspace;
>  
> -	KERNEL_ASSERT_UNLOCKED();
> -
>  #ifdef __HAVE_PMAP_PURGE
>  	pmap_purge(p);
>  #endif
> Index: kern/kern_exit.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_exit.c,v
> diff -u -p -r1.252 kern_exit.c
> --- kern/kern_exit.c	10 Aug 2025 15:17:57 -0000	1.252
> +++ kern/kern_exit.c	27 Nov 2025 18:00:06 -0000
> @@ -253,11 +253,13 @@ exit1(struct proc *p, int xexit, int xsi
>  			 * It is safe to release them all since exit1()
>  			 * will not return.
>  			 */
> -#ifdef MULTIPROCESSOR
> +#if defined(MULTIPROCESSOR) && !defined(__sparc64__)
>  			__mp_release_all(&kernel_lock);
>  #endif
>  			uvm_purge();
> +#if !defined(__sparc64__)
>  			KERNEL_LOCK();
> +#endif
>  		}
>  	}
>