On Friday 27 of August 2010 22:29:41 Luck, Tony wrote:
> > If this is a memory ordering problem (and that seems quite plausible)
> > then a liberal sprinkling of "ia64_mf()" calls throughout the spinlock
> > routines would probably make it go away.
>
> I think I take this back ... if it were a memory ordering problem, then
> it could show up any time - not just at wrap-around.
Well, I wasn't originally sure if it only happens at wrap-around. OTOH I've
now modified my tests, so that they would also catch any other badness, and I
still only got another two failures after wrap-around.
>From looking at the traces, I'm afraid this smells like another Itanium
erratum. I'm now trying to write a minimal test case...
Petr Tesarik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Linux]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux Hams]