[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150322.195743.1225936659717870427.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 19:57:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: david.ahern@...cle.com, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.0.0-rc4: panic in free_block
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:49:51 -0700
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:23 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, using VIS how we do is alright, and in fact I did an audit of
>> this about 1 year ago. This is another one of those "if this is
>> wrong, so much stuff would break"
>
> Maybe. But it does seem like Bob Picco has narrowed it down to memmove().
>
> It also bothers me enormously - and perhaps unreasonably - how that
> memcpy code has memory barriers in it. I can see _zero_ reason for a
> memory barrier inside a memcpy, unless the memcpy does something that
> isn't valid to begin with. Are the VIS operatiosn perhaps using some
> kind of non-temporal form that doesn't follow the TSO rules? Kind of
> like the "movnt" that Intel has?
The special cache line clearing stores (the ASI_BLK_INIT_QUAD_LDD_P
stuff) do not adhere to the memory model.
I had elided the memory barriers originally, but it caused memory
corruption.
So yes, this is similar to the 'movnt' situation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists