Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:34:33 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com>
cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: score-boarding [was Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers]
In-Reply-To: <OFA620FD83.F72E84C5-ON802571EF.007DCA9D-802571EF.007E6808@uk.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609231619220.27459@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
References: <OFA620FD83.F72E84C5-ON802571EF.007DCA9D-802571EF.007E6808@uk.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1134
Lines: 22

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Richard J Moore wrote:
> 
> It can for another reason - score-boarding: that's where a byte being
> stored assumes intermediate values due to the bits not being set
> simultaneously. Generally this doesn't cause a problem because data across
> processors is serialised for update by mutexes. However, when applied to
> code all sorts of interesting instructions can execute before the bits
> settle down. I haven't heard of this troubling Intel, but it does occur on
> some current architectures.

I'd not heard of this phenomenon, and it worries me.  There are places
in kernel code where we peek at some volatile variable (perhaps a long)
without locking, and expect to see it in any one of several well-defined
states.  Are you saying that there are architectures supported by Linux,
on which we might see an "impossible" mix of states, due to score-boarding?

Hugh
-
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/