[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Possible memory ordering bug in page reclaim?
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 04:07:02PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:07:01 +0200
> > sure see alpha:
> >
> > __asm__ __volatile__(
> > "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"
> > " mb\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
> > usec.
> For atomic operations returning values, there must be a memory
> barrier both before and after the atomic operation. This is
> defined in Documentation/atomic_ops.txt, so Alpha needs to be
> fixed to add a memory barrier at the beginning of these
> assembler sequences.

My opinion is that we don't need a barrier even _after_ ll/sc sequences
on Alpha - it's redundant; perhaps it's just a historical baggage.
I strongly believe that ll/sc _does_ imply an SMP memory barrier, as can
be seen from instructions timing: a standalone mb takes tens of cycles,
the mb before/after ll/sc takes 0 to 1 cycle on ev6 (a bit more on ev56)
depending on instruction slotting.
Note that superfluous mb's around atomic stuff still can hurt -
Alpha mb instruction also flushes IO write buffers, so it can
be _extremely_ expensive under heavy IO...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-10-16 21:44    [W:0.043 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site