[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1343334805.32120.13.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:33:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: thp and memory barrier assumptions
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 22:31 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> __do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page() contains:
>
> /*
> * The spinlocking to take the lru_lock inside
> * page_add_new_anon_rmap() acts as a full memory
> * barrier to be sure clear_huge_page writes become
> * visible after the set_pmd_at() write.
> */
> page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, haddr);
>
>
> page_add_new_anon_rmap() doesn't look to actually do a LOCK+UNLOCK
> except for unevictable pages.
>
> But even if it did do an unconditional LOCK+UNLOCK that doesn't make a
> full memory barrier, see Documentation/memory-barriers.txt.
>
> In particular:
>
> *A = a;
> LOCK
> UNLOCK
> *B = b;
>
> may occur as:
>
> LOCK, STORE *B, STORE *A, UNLOCK
>
Also, what is that barrier() in handle_mm_fault() doing? And why doesn't
it have a comment explaining that?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists