From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: fix anon_vma races
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:49:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081018054916.GB26472@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18681.20241.347889.843669@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 01:50:57PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Nick Piggin writes:
>
> > But after thinking about this a bit more, I think Linux would be
> > broken all over the map under such ordering schemes. I think we'd
> > have to mandate causal consistency. Are there any architectures we
> > run on where this is not guaranteed? (I think recent clarifications
> > to x86 ordering give us CC on that architecture).
> >
> > powerpc, ia64, alpha, sparc, arm, mips? (cced linux-arch)
>
> Not sure what you mean by causal consistency, but I assume it's the
I think it can be called transitive. Basically (assumememory starts off zeroed)
CPU0
x := 1
CPU1
if (x == 1) {
fence
y := 1
}
CPU2
if (y == 1) {
fence
assert(x == 1)
}
As opposed to pairwise, which only provides an ordering of visibility between
any given two CPUs (so the store to y might be propogated to CPU2 after the
store to x, regardless of the fences).
Apparently pairwise ordering is more interesting than just a theoretical
thing, and not just restricted to Alpha's funny caches. It can allow for
arbitrary network propogating stores / cache coherency between CPUs. x86's
publically documented memory model supposedly could allow for such ordering
up until a year or so ago (when they clarified and strengthened it).
> same as saying that barriers give cumulative ordering, as described on
> page 413 of the Power Architecture V2.05 document at:
>
> http://www.power.org/resources/reading/PowerISA_V2.05.pdf
>
> The ordering provided by sync, lwsync and eieio is cumulative (see
> pages 446 and 448), so we should be OK on powerpc AFAICS. (The
> cumulative property of eieio only applies to accesses to normal system
> memory, but that should be OK since we use sync when we want barriers
> that affect non-cacheable accesses as well as cacheable.)
The section on cumulative ordering sounds like it might do the trick. But
I haven't really worked through exactly what it is saying ;)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-18 5:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-16 4:10 Nick Piggin
2008-10-17 22:14 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-17 23:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 0:13 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-18 0:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 1:53 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-18 2:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-10-18 2:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 5:49 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-10-18 10:49 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-10-18 17:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 18:44 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-10-19 2:54 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-19 2:53 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-17 23:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-17 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 0:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 1:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 1:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-18 2:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 2:25 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-18 2:35 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-18 2:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-18 5:20 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-18 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-19 9:52 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-19 10:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-19 12:39 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-19 18:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-19 18:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-19 19:00 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-20 4:03 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-20 15:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-20 18:21 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-21 2:56 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-21 3:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-21 4:33 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-21 12:58 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-21 15:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-10-22 9:29 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-21 4:34 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-21 13:55 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-21 2:44 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-18 19:14 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-19 3:03 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-19 7:07 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-20 3:26 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-21 2:45 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-19 1:13 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-19 2:41 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-19 9:45 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-10-21 3:59 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081018054916.GB26472@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox