Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:58:24 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        fs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 270089] mpr: panic in mpr_complete_command during zpool import
Message-ID:  <bug-270089-3630-JCDWrpg0TF@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-270089-3630@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-270089-3630@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=3D270089

--- Comment #20 from Dan Kotowski <dan.kotowski@a9development.com> ---
> Since this is on an ARM server, there may be something subtle there due t=
o arm's weaker memory model than amd64 that's causing this.

I don't know if it's related or not, but PCIe GPUs under Linux DRM can
experience weird artifacting and tearing as a result of some sort of memory
issue. The fix from the firmware developer was to reorder operations in gli=
bc
memcpy.

> Subject: [PATCH] Aarch64: Make memcpy more compatible with device memory
>=20
> For normal non-cacheable memory ACE supports 4x128 bit r/w WRAP
> transfers or 1x128 bit r/w INCR transfers.  By re-ordering the
> stp's in memcpy / memmove we can accomodate this better without
> impacting the existing code.
>=20
> This fixes an issue seen on multiple Cortex-A72 SOCs when writing
> directly to a PCIe memmapped frame-buffer, which resulted in
> corruption.
https://gist.github.com/jnettlet/f6f8b49bb7c731255c46f541f875f436

Test for framebuffer memcpy bugs:
https://gist.github.com/jnettlet/80f8d09d01c0dc0ffc0122f36ed78de6

Unfortunately I lack the knowledge to know how to build a test util for
FreeBSD, but I do wonder if the coherency issue on the bus is impacting my =
case
as well?

Another user in the vendor's Discord channel recently stated that they've b=
een
experiencing issues with using 2x NVMe drives off of a SuperMicro bifurcated
PCIe-to-NVMe adapter. And I've since been able to replicate the issues usin=
g a
Linux mdadm mirror as well.

I have not seen panics when testing single drives, only when using pools of=
 2
or more.

Perhaps it only presents when there are multiple commands issued in paralle=
l?

> is this a zpool import from a pool that was created on another system?

I have been able to reproduce with zpools from known-working systems and tr=
ying
to create new ones as well.

--=20
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-270089-3630-JCDWrpg0TF>