From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] RFC: PCI using capabilitities Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:32:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1323552773.32487.37.camel@lappy> References: <87pqfzgy6p.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1323358657.32487.9.camel@lappy> <87d3byfev0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87d3byfev0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Avi Kivity , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 16:47 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:37:37 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > Which leads me to the question: Are MMIO vs MMIO reads/writes not > > ordered? > > That seems really odd, especially being repeatable. Happens every single time. Can't be a coincidence. I even went into paranoia mode and made sure that both IO requests come from the same vcpu. Another weird thing I've noticed is that mb() doesn't fix it, while if I replace the mb() with a printk() it works well. > BTW, that's an address, not a pfn now. Fixed :) -- Sasha.