linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] splice : two smp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4547E009.6070008@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:45:13 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] splice : two smp_mb() can be omitted

Eric Dumazet wrote:

> Nick Piggin a écrit :
>
>>
>> Again, lock / unlock operations require acquire / release 
>> consistency. This is a
>> memory ordering operation. It is not equivalent to smp_mb, though.
>
>
> This thread just show how difficult it is to have consistent use of 
> all this stuff in all kernel. Maybe it is just me ? Should I work on 
> IA64 to have a chance to learn ?


No need, just don't go thinking that mutex_unlock implies smp_mb.

spin_unlock has never implied an smp_rmb on i386.

> For example, Documentation/atomic_ops.txt comments about 
> atomic_inc_return() and atomic_dec_return() seems in contradiction 
> with itself.
>
> --------------------------
>
> Unlike the above routines, it is required that explicit memory
> barriers are performed before and after the operation.  It must be
> done such that all memory operations before and after the atomic
> operation calls are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic
> operation itself.
>
> -------------------------
>
> When I read this, I understand we (the user of such functions) need to 
> add smp_mb(). (That is, those functions wont do it themselves)


This is written from the point of view of the _implementor_. I agree it 
is a bit
confusing, but does the example below clear it up?

>
> Then following text is :
>
> ----------------------------
> For example, it should behave as if a smp_mb() call existed both
> before and after the atomic operation.
>
> --------------------------
>
> Now I understand the reverse.


Now you understand correctly ;)

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/