From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:50:17 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: David Laight Subject: Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on arm64 Message-ID: <20180808145017.GE24736@iMac.local> References: <20180803094129.GB17798@arm.com> <20180808121641.GB24736@iMac.local> <19c70d2a0b224db78f72dd316ad006b8@AcuMS.aculab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <19c70d2a0b224db78f72dd316ad006b8@AcuMS.aculab.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Joao Pinto , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-pci , Will Deacon , Russell King , Linux Kernel Mailing List , 'Mikulas Patocka' , Matt Sealey , Jingoo Han , linux-arm-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+bjorn=helgaas.com@lists.infradead.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 02:26:11PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Mikulas Patocka > > Sent: 08 August 2018 14:47 > ... > > The problem on ARM is that I see data corruption when the overlapping > > unaligned writes are done just by a single core. > > Is this a sequence of unaligned writes (that shouldn't modify the > same physical locations) or an aligned write followed by an > unaligned one that updates part of the earlier write. > (Or the opposite order?) In the memcpy() case, there can be a sequence of unaligned writes but they would not modify the same byte (so no overlapping address at the byte level). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel