From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=X6pY=KX=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C29C4646D
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  8 Aug 2018 14:50:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061EA21990
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  8 Aug 2018 14:50:25 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 061EA21990
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1727555AbeHHRKW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:10:22 -0400
Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:40182 "EHLO
        foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1727146AbeHHRKW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:10:22 -0400
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249])
        by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6135118A;
        Wed,  8 Aug 2018 07:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iMac.local (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70])
        by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 420A43F5D4;
        Wed,  8 Aug 2018 07:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:50:17 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc:     'Mikulas Patocka' <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matt Sealey <neko@bakuhatsu.net>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on
 arm64
Message-ID: <20180808145017.GE24736@iMac.local>
References: <CAKv+Gu8DeuksZhk1g3q_msSKV_hSY_2e1uzVten9-oGO3j9Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180803094129.GB17798@arm.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808031235410.31584@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <CAKv+Gu-aNFh1fsr_05SEwDp99n3pLrguP7=tEcFQPNY53=K7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808031424140.14030@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <CAHCPf3s-+Qf=WBZz1KpisDMG3520jCUh8PLAO3PHa4jdt8kCTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180808121641.GB24736@iMac.local>
 <b1de49af14d941979977af07dc81e1c2@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808080939180.3325@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <19c70d2a0b224db78f72dd316ad006b8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19c70d2a0b224db78f72dd316ad006b8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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