[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1288100208.3169.112.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:36:48 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Joe Buehler <aspam@....net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel panic in fib_rules_lookup [2.6.27.7 vendor-patched]
Le mardi 26 octobre 2010 à 09:29 -0400, Joe Buehler a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > With a normal workload, on a dual cpu machine, a missing memory barrier
> > can stay un-noticed for quite a long time. The race window is so small
> > that probability for the bug might be 0.0000001 % or something like
> > that :(
>
> I'm looking at the LINUX source at the moment and not liking what I see
> in include/asm-mips/barrier.h:
>
> #define smp_mb() __asm__ __volatile__(__WEAK_ORDERING_MB : : :"memory")
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON
> #define smp_rmb() barrier()
> #define smp_wmb() barrier()
> #else
> #define smp_rmb() __asm__ __volatile__(__WEAK_ORDERING_MB : : :"memory")
> #define smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__(__WEAK_ORDERING_MB : : :"memory")
> #endif
>
> The Octeon documentation explicitly says that neither loads nor stores
> need execute in program order, so the definitions for smp_rmb and
> smp_wmb appear to be wrong wrong wrong.
>
> It appears that smp_wmb should be making use of SYNCW and smp_rmb should
> be making use of SYNC.
>
> Should I pursue this question on the main LINUX kernel list?
Well, it would be surprising this being wrong and crash only once in a
while in fib_rules_lookup
Did you tried my last patch ?
--
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