Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 12:21:31 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.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
In-Reply-To: <20180808145017.GE24736@iMac.local>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808081215120.31259@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
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> <20180808145017.GE24736@iMac.local>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> 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).

They do modify the same byte, but with the same value. Suppose that you 
want to copy a piece of data that is between 8 and 16 bytes long. You can 
do this:

add src_end, src, len
add dst_end, dst, len
ldr x0, [src]
ldr x1, [src_end - 8]
str x0, [dst]
str x1, [dst_end - 8]

The ARM64 memcpy uses this trick heavily in order to reduce branching, and 
this is what makes the PCIe controller choke.

Mikulas