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
|