we’ll try and clean a patch up to show just this…….
THANKS!
Cheers
Mark.
> On 3 Mar 2015, at 16:34, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/03/2015 16:33, Mark Burton wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Mar 2015, at 16:32, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/03/2015 16:29, Mark Burton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ps. on our bug - we believe somehow the STREX is being marked as
>>>> failed, but actually succeeds to write something. There are only 3
>>>> ways the strex can fail: 1/ the address doesn't match - in which case
>>>> no ST will be attempted 2/ the value doesn't match - which means - no
>>>> ST attempted 3/ the store starts, but causes a TLB fill/exception…
>>>>
>>>> The 3rd has 2 possibilities - the TLB is filled, and the store goes
>>>> ahead totally normally - there should be no ‘fail’ - or an exception
>>>> is generated in which case we will long jump away and never return.
>>>
>>> When do you release the lock?
>>>
>> (Thanks Paolo!)
>>
>> We release the lock in either
>> a) the end of the strex
>> or
>> b) in the ‘raise_exception’
>
> That seems right... Can you post the patch?
>
> Paolo
+44 (0)20 7100 3485 x 210
+33 (0)5 33 52 01 77x 210
+33 (0)603762104
mark.burton
