From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Tue Aug 21 11:42:03 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0A4106E6A4 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143857FA48 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id CD092106E6A2; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB1F106E6A1 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CCBD7FA42 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB45C2FC65 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w7LBg15v081262 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:01 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w7LBg1C2081261 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:01 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f 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 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:01 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:42:03 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D222234 --- Comment #9 from Mark Millard --- (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. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=