Sorry, way behind on email here. I'll get through it slowly...

On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 10:03:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:01:14 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> > After running SetPageUptodate, preceeding stores to the page contents to
> > actually bring it uptodate may not be ordered with the store to set the page
> > uptodate.
> > 
> > Therefore, another CPU which checks PageUptodate is true, then reads the
> > page contents can get stale data.
> > 
> > Fix this by having an smp_wmb before SetPageUptodate, and smp_rmb after
> > PageUptodate.
> > 
> > Many places that test PageUptodate, do so with the page locked, and this
> > would be enough to ensure memory ordering in those places if SetPageUptodate
> > were only called while the page is locked. Unfortunately that is not always
> > the case for some filesystems, but it could be an idea for the future.
> > 
> > Also bring the handling of anonymous page uptodateness in line with that of
> > file backed page management, by marking anon pages as uptodate when they _are_
> > uptodate, rather than when our implementation requires that they be marked as
> > such. Doing allows us to get rid of the smp_wmb's in the page copying
> > functions, which were especially added for anonymous pages for an analogous
> > memory ordering problem. Both file and anonymous pages are handled with the
> > same barriers.
> > 
> 
> So...  it's two patches in one.

I guess so. Hmm, at least I appreciate it (them) getting testing in -mm
for now. I guess I should break it in two, do you agree Hugh? Do you
like/dislike the anonymous page change?


quoted text
> What kernel is this against?  Looks like mainline.  Is it complete and
> correct when applied against the large number of pending MM changes?

Uh, I forget. But luckily this one should be quite correct reglardless
of pending mm changes... unless something there has fundamentally changed
the semantics or locking of PG_uptodate... which wouldn't be too surprising
actually ;)

No, it should be OK. I'll double check when I look at resubmitting it as
2 patches.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/