linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency and identical stores

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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 06:08:16 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jianyu Zhan <nasa4836@...il.com>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	josh@...htriplett.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency
 and identical stores

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 02:41:07PM +0800, Jianyu Zhan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > So ordering between the read from "a" and the write to "b" is still
> > preserved.  The reason this works is that the smp_mb() does all the
> > ordering, so the fact that the control dependency has been eliminated
> > is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Paul,  nice clarification.
> 
> I thinks this example qualifies as an good example to demonstrate the subtle
> scope of effect of these two level barriers.
> 
> A vivid example is always better for understanding instead of learning
> "barrier() is compiler-level
> barrier, and smp_*mb() is processor-level barrier" by rote ,
> especially for the new comers to memory-barriers.txt. ;-)

Glad you like it.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul