mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] documentation: explain memory barriers
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:52:18 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36155.1223535138@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:35:47 +1100." <200810100435.48010.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1941 bytes --]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:35:47 +1100, Nick Piggin said:
> On Thursday 09 October 2008 12:50, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:12:23 PDT, Randy Dunlap said:
> > > +
> > > +24: All memory barriers {e.g., barrier(), rmb(), wmb()} need a comment
> > > in the +    source code that explains the logic of what they are doing
> > > and why.
> >
> > "what they are doing" will almost always be "flush value to RAM" or
> > similar.
> 
> Memory barriers don't flush anything anywhere.

That's what I get for commenting on stuff when I'm into a 40-hour week by
Wednesday. :)

I was speaking of the generic programmer who does stuff like:

	x = 10; /* set x to 10 */ 

for "what they are doing".  You know the type. ;)

"flush value to RAM", "force memory barrier operation", and I think I've seen
a few kzalloc()'s that have "allocate zero'ed memory" on them. "what they are
doing" is usually not worth writing down, but being verbose for the *why*
is almost always good, especially for things like memory barriers that
almost nobody can get their brains wrapped around (how many flame-fests per
year do we have about "volatile"? ;)

>  /*
>   * If we don't do a wmb() here, the store to the RBFROBNIZ,
>   * above, might reach the device before the store X, below.
>   * 
>   * If that happens, then the XU293  card will get confused
>   * and wedge the hardware...
>   */
>   wmb();
> 
> If you don't comment like that, then how does the reader know that the wmb
> is not *also* supposed to order the store with any other of the limitless
> subsequent stores until the next memory ordering operation? Or any of the
> previous stores since the last one?

Even better (as I missed the "also supposed to know" case).  My general point
was that a concrete example would improve Randy's original patch by showing
what sort of things should be in the comment, and your correction pointed
out *why* a concrete example was needed. ;)


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-09  6:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20080911101616.GA24064@agk.fab.redhat.com>
2008-09-22 21:10 ` [PATCH] Memory management livelock Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-23  0:48   ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-23 22:34   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-23 22:49     ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-23 23:11       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-23 23:46         ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-24 18:50           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-24 18:51           ` [PATCH 1/3] " Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-24 18:52           ` [PATCH 2/3] " Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-02  5:54             ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-05 22:11               ` RFC: one-bit mutexes (was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Memory management livelock) Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-11 12:06                 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-20 20:14                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-21  1:51                     ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-05 22:14               ` [PATCH 1/3] bit mutexes Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 22:14               ` [PATCH 2/3] Fix fsync livelock Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 22:33                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-05 23:02                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 23:07                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-05 23:18                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 23:28                         ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06  0:01                           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06  0:30                             ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06  3:30                               ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06  4:20                                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06 13:00                                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06 13:50                                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06 20:44                                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-08 10:56                               ` Pavel Machek
2008-10-06  2:51                             ` Dave Chinner
2008-10-05 22:16               ` [PATCH 3/3] Fix fsync-vs-write misbehavior Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-09  1:12               ` [PATCH] documentation: explain memory barriers Randy Dunlap
2008-10-09  1:17                 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-09  1:31                   ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-09  5:51                     ` Chris Snook
2008-10-09  9:58                       ` Ben Hutchings
2008-10-09 21:27                         ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-09 17:29                       ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-09  1:50                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-10-09 17:35                   ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-09  6:52                     ` Valdis.Kletnieks [this message]
2008-09-24 18:53           ` [PATCH 3/3] Memory management livelock Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03  2:32       ` [PATCH] " Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  2:40         ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  2:59           ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  3:14             ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  3:47               ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  3:56                 ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  4:07                   ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  4:17                     ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  4:29                       ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 11:43                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03 12:27                     ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 13:53                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03  2:54         ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 11:26           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03 12:31             ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 13:50               ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03 14:50                 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2008-10-03 14:36               ` Alasdair G Kergon
2008-10-03 15:52           ` application syncing options (was Re: [PATCH] Memory management livelock) david
2008-10-06  0:04             ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06  0:19               ` david
2008-10-06  3:42                 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-07  3:37                   ` david
2008-10-07 15:44                     ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-07 17:16                       ` david

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=36155.1223535138@turing-police.cc.vt.edu \
    --to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bhutchings@solarflare.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®