[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287850059.2658.313.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:07:39 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Joe Buehler <aspam@....net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: kernel panic in fib_rules_lookup [2.6.27.7 vendor-patched]
Le samedi 23 octobre 2010 à 11:40 -0400, Joe Buehler a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > David Daney added a nudge_writes(), actually doing a "syncw"
> > instruction, and this seems to be the smp_wmb() this platform should be
> > using in the first place, not a pure compiler barrier (barrier())
> >
> > So Joe, you might want to change the smp_wmb() call in
> > rcu_assign_pointer() by the nudge_writes() call, and see what happens...
> >
> >
> >
>
> I think Daney is Cavium's Octeon LINUX guru from the posts I've seen so
> he would definitely know the platform. I'm not sure I quite understand
> what you are saying but it sounds as though you are saying that smp_wb
> is not doing a syncw and that sounds *totally* broken -- snycw is what
> the low-level Cavium SDK uses for memory barriers all over the place.
>
Yes, I am saying exactly this : smp_wmb() is a barrier() only, at least
on the disassembly you provided to me. It might be fine (it is the same
on x86 for example)
fib_rules.old.s
.L234:
.loc 1 338 0
beq $9,$0,.L235 if (last) {
.LBB911: // last = prev->next
.LBB912:
.loc 12 45 0
ld $2,0($9) //next = prev->next
.LBB913:
.LBB914:
.loc 12 22 0
sd $9,8($18) // part of list_add_rcu new->prev = prev;
.loc 12 21 0
sd $2,0($18) // new->next = next;
.loc 12 23 0
<<!>>
sd $18,0($9) //rcu_assign_pointer(prev->next, new);
.loc 12 24 0
sd $18,8($2) // next->prev = new;
.L236:
.LBE914:
.LBE913:
No syncw here at least.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists