Hi Will, I am happy to notify that our stability test has passed, And this Crash don't happen again, So seems this patch work now .
We has merged it into our release SW . Could I know if this patch will be delivered into kernel Mainline by you ? Thanks again ! -----Original Message----- From: Wang, Yalin Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:15 PM To: 'Will Deacon' Cc: 'linux-arm-msm-ow...@vger.kernel.org'; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Peng, Arthur; Zhang, Bojie; Gu, Youcai 1 (EXT); Alevoor, Raghavendra 2 Subject: RE: BUG report about ipt_do_table( ) Hi Will, Thanks for your clarification . I have merged the patch, And need wait some time to get The test result , You know that this BUG is not easy to reproduce, It's very infrequent. Maybe we need run several times stability test to Make sure the patch works . I will update to you the result as soon as possible ! Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.dea...@arm.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:03 PM To: Wang, Yalin Cc: 'linux-arm-msm-ow...@vger.kernel.org'; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Peng, Arthur; Zhang, Bojie; Gu, Youcai 1 (EXT); Alevoor, Raghavendra 2 Subject: Re: BUG report about ipt_do_table( ) On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:50:24AM +0100, Wang, Yalin wrote: > Hi Will, Hello again, > Maybe I know your meaning , > If it use spinlock to protected the shared data, The bug will not > happen, because spinlock will Use DSB( ) to sync . Actually, the dsb is for something else (the sev). It is the smp_mb() call which guarantees the ordering of critical sections with respect to spinlock operations. > Unluckily, here, it use a special seqcount_t( ) (see get_counters( ) > function) Well, there is a comment about a write_lock being held, so you should be ok if that's true. The issue I saw was with the newinfo population, as I described in my earlier mail. > To make sure there is no others using the old data, Before release the > old data, this is much like RCU Work, but RCU use rcu_assign_pointer( > ) --> Which use smp_wmb( ) , so it's safe, am I right ? RCU is safe. There are *many* weakly ordered architectures on which Linux runs, so I don't think you have to worry too much about the core data structures and locking/synchronisation/atomic primitives. The major scope for errors is in lockless code, where the barrier usage is explicit. > In my patch, I use mb( ), because this macro Is DSB( ) , while > smp_wmb( ) is DMS( ), I just think DSB is much strict than DMS, mmm.. > so , DSM( ) or DMS ( ) are both ok ? I think you're getting confused with your barriers. We have two memory barriers on ARM: dmb and dsb. dmb is sufficient to enforce ordering of observability. dsb is used to enforce completion. > The whitepaper I use is here: > https://www.google.com/#q=cortex+a15+microarchitecture > > the first: [PDF] Exploring the Design of the Cortex-A15 Processor - > ARM > > I just search in Google, and you know that qcom don't release Much > document about its krait cpu's micro architecture details, I just use > cortex-a15 for a reference, I am not sure if their pipeline ( > load/store unit) are the same, I think the lawyers would have a field day if the pipelines were the same! You really can't use an A15 slide-deck to infer micro-architectural details about Krait. Please can you test the patch I sent you yesterday? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
