[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:50:17 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Mikulas Patocka' <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Sealey <neko@...uhatsu.net>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on
arm64
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 02:26:11PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Mikulas Patocka
> > Sent: 08 August 2018 14:47
> ...
> > The problem on ARM is that I see data corruption when the overlapping
> > unaligned writes are done just by a single core.
>
> Is this a sequence of unaligned writes (that shouldn't modify the
> same physical locations) or an aligned write followed by an
> unaligned one that updates part of the earlier write.
> (Or the opposite order?)
In the memcpy() case, there can be a sequence of unaligned writes but
they would not modify the same byte (so no overlapping address at the
byte level).
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists