Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:01 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 222234] head -r323246 aarch64 (Pine64+ 2GB) boot time context, sometimes: acquiring blockable sleep lock with spinlock or critical section held Message-ID: <bug-222234-227-jX45UbnrpH@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-222234-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-222234-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222234 --- Comment #9 from Mark Millard <marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com> --- (In reply to Emmanuel Vadot from comment #8) I'll have to build a debug kernel and try using it. (It will be later today before I get to that.) Likely I'll test as of -r337400 since that is my established context overall and is well after -r324207 . As for identcpu.c 's example, I've been running with it patched --but only because the ARM documentation indicated to always have the dsb. I do not know what an expected observational difference would be for the two code variants. All I can say is that having it did not seem to hurt anything in any obvious way. Is there someone around that might know if there is a reason that identcpu.c does not need the instruction, despite what I read? Should it be updated based just one what arm documents, even if no observational difference is known? I leave the judgments to you but likely will keep the patch in place if the file is not updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-222234-227-jX45UbnrpH>