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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f3cdec26-480e-d2e0-3e54-4b0536831fcd@jonmasters.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 23:36:19 -0400
From:   Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/6] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt:
 ACCESS_ONCE() provides cache coherence

Hi Paul,

On 2/17/14 4:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> The ACCESS_ONCE() primitive provides cache coherence, but the
> documentation does not clearly state this.  This commit therefore upgrades
> the documentation.

<snip>

> +     In short, ACCESS_ONCE() provides "cache coherence" for accesses from
> +     multiple CPUs to a single variable.

(ACCESS_ONCE is now READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE but the above added the 
original language around cache coherence)

I would argue that we might want to avoid describing it in this manner. 
The hardware provides cache coherency in order to keep a single memory 
location coherent between multiple observers. These kernel macros only 
tell the compiler to perform the load once. They take advantage of the 
properties of coherence in the presence of multiple observers.

Jon.

-- 
Computer Architect

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ