On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 11:53:22AM +0100, Kajetan Puchalski wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:22:24AM +0100, Kajetan Puchalski wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2022 at 10:56:51PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > > That would make sense, from further experiments I ran it somehow seems > > > > to be related to the number of workers being spawned by stress-ng along > > > > with the CPUs/cores involved. > > > > > > > > For instance, running the test with <=25 workers (--udp-flood 25 etc.) > > > > results in the test running fine for at least 15 minutes. > > > > > > Ok. I will let it run for longer on the machines I have access to. > > > > > > In mean time, you could test attached patch, its simple s/refcount_/atomic_/ > > > in nf_conntrack. > > > > > > If mainline (patch vs. HEAD 69cb6c6556ad89620547318439) crashes for you > > > but works with attached patch someone who understands aarch64 memory ordering > > > would have to look more closely at refcount_XXX functions to see where they > > > might differ from atomic_ ones. > > > > I can confirm that the patch seems to solve the issue. > > With it applied on top of the 5.19-rc5 tag the test runs fine for at > > least 15 minutes which was not the case before so it looks like it is > > that aarch64 memory ordering problem. > > I'm CCing some people who should be able to help with aarch64 memory > ordering, maybe they could take a look. > > (re-sending due to a typo in CC, sorry for duplicate emails!) Sorry, but I have absolutely no context here. We have a handy document describing the differences between atomic_t and refcount_t: Documentation/core-api/refcount-vs-atomic.rst What else do you need to know? Will
