lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Possible memory ordering bug in page reclaim?
Date
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
>> > 1 2
>> > find_get_page();
>> > write to page write_lock(tree_lock);
>> > SetPageDirty(); if (page_count != 2
>> > put_page(); || PageDirty())
>> >
>> > Now I'm worried that 2 might see PageDirty *before* SetPageDirty in
>> page->flags
>> > 1, and page_count *after* put_page in 1.
>
> yup, now the question is wether PG_Dirty will be visible to CPU 2 before
> the page count is decremented right ? That depends on put_page, I
> suppose. If it's doing a simple atomic, there is an issue. But atomics
> with return has been so often abused as locks that they may have been
> implemented with a barrier... (On ppc64, it will do an eieio, thus I
> think it should be ok).

Yes atomic_add_negative should always be a barrier.

> There is also a problem the other way around. Write to page, then set
> page dirty... those writes may be visible to CPU 2 (that is the page
> content be dirty) before find_get_page even increased the page count,
> unless there is a barrier in there too.

find_get_page does a read_unlock_irq after the increment which also
serves as a barrier.

Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-10-15 10:03    [W:0.073 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site