Re: smp_rmb in mm/memory.c in 2.6.10

[Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> 
> Thanks, I think this explains it. IE, if do_no_page()
> reads truncate_count, and then later goes on to
> acquire a lock in nopage(), the smp_rmb() is
> guaranteeing that the read of truncate_count completes
> before nopage() starts executing. 
> 
> For x86 at least, it seems to me that since the
> spin_lock (in nopage()) uses a "lock" instruction,
> that itself guarantees that the truncate_count read is
> completed, even without the smp_rmb(). (Refer to IA32
> SDM Vol 3 section 7.2.4 last para page 7-11). Thus for
> x86, the smp_rmb is superfluous.

You're making me nervous.  If you look at 2.6.11-rc1 you'll find
that I too couldn't see the point of that smp_rmb(), on any architecture,
and so removed it; while also removing the "atomicity" of truncate_count.

Here was my comment to that patch:
> Why is mapping->truncate_count atomic?  It's incremented inside
> i_mmap_lock (and i_sem), and the reads don't need it to be atomic.
> 
> And why smp_rmb() before call to ->nopage?  The compiler cannot reorder
> the initial assignment of sequence after the call to ->nopage, and no
> cpu (yet!) can read from the future, which is all that matters there.

Now I'm not so convinced by that "no cpu can read from the future".

I don't entirely follow your remarks above, but I do think people
on this thread have a better grasp of these matters than I have:
does anyone now think that smp_rmb() needs to be restored?

Hugh

--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>