linux-kernel - Re: mutex vs cache coherency protocol(for multiprocessor )

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46DD56BD.2070902@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:59:41 -0400
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	Xu Yang <risingsunxy@...glemail.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mutex vs cache coherency protocol(for multiprocessor )

Xu Yang wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Just got a rough question in my head.
> 
> don't know whether anyone interested .
> 
> mutex vs cache coherency protocol(for multiprocessor)
> 
> both of these two can be used to protect shared resource in the memory.
> 
> are both of them necessary?
> 
> for example:
> 
> in a multiprocessor system, if there is only mutex no cache coherency.
> obviously this would cause problem.
> 
> what about there is no mutex mechanism, only cache coherency protocol
> in multiprocessor system? after consideration, I found this also could
> casue problem, when the processors are multithreading processors,
> which means more than one threads can be running on one processor. in
> this case if we only have cache coherency and no mutex, this would
> cause problem. because all the threads running on one processor share
> one cache, the cache coherency protocol can not be functioning
> anymore. the shrared resource could be crashed by different threads.
> 
> then if all the processors in the multiprocessor system are sigle
> thread processor, only one thread can be running one one processor. is
> it ok, if we only have cache coherency protocol ,no mutex mechanism?
> 
> anyone has any idea? all the comments are welcome and appreciated,
> including criticism.

Cache coherency is necessary for SMP locking primitives (and thus Linux SMP 
support), but it is hardly sufficient.  Take a look at all the exciting inline 
assembly in include/asm/ for spinlocks, atomic operations, etc.

	-- Chris
-
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/