Re: Possible memory ordering bug in page reclaim?
From: Andrea Arcangeli
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 15:09:26 EST
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 05:48:55AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 06:00:18PM +0000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Note that the barrier in atomic_add_negative is useless here because it
> > happens way too late, _after_ the count is decremented (not _before_)
> > so the decreased count could be already visible to the other cpu.
> Could you please point me to an architecture that does this?
sure see alpha:
"1: ldq_l %0,%1\n"
" addq %0,%3,%2\n"
" addq %0,%3,%0\n"
" stq_c %0,%1\n"
" beq %0,2f\n"
the memory barrier is applied way after the write is visible to other
cpus, you can even get an irq before the mb and block there for some
>From a common code point of view, the barrier you mentioned in
atomic_add_negative is absolutely useless for this specific case
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/