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  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]
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:38:29 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 05:41:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 03-10-14 19:36:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:07:48AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > > The barriers are implied in change-return atomics, which is why there
> > > is an xchg.  But it's clear that this needs to be documented.  This?:
> > 
> > With the comments it looks correct to me, but I wonder if we can always
> > rely on implicit memory barriers issued by atomic ops. Are there any
> > archs where it doesn't hold?
> 
> xchg is explcitly mentioned in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt so it
> is expected to be barrier on all archs. Besides that not all atomic ops
> imply memory barriers. Only those that "modifies some state in memory
> and returns information about the state" do.

Thank you for the info, now it's clear to me.

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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