Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper

[Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>]

dean gaudet wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>> I've also heard that string operations do not follow the normal ordering, but
>> that's just with respect to individual loads/stores in the one operation, I
>> hope? And they will still follow ordering rules WRT surrounding loads and
>> stores?
> 
> see section 7.2.3 of intel volume 3A...
> 
> "Code dependent upon sequential store ordering should not use the string 
> operations for the entire data structure to be stored. Data and semaphores 
> should be separated. Order dependent code should use a discrete semaphore 
> uniquely stored to after any string operations to allow correctly ordered 
> data to be seen by all processors."
> 
> i think we need sfence after things like copy_page, clear_page, and 
> possibly copy_user... at least on intel processors with fast strings 
> option enabled.

I do not think.  I believe that authors are trying to say that

struct { uint8 lock; uint8 data; } x;

lea (x.data),%edi
mov $2,%ecx
std
rep movsb

to set both data and lock does not guarantee that x.lock will be set 
after x.data and that you should do

lea (x.data),%edi
std
movsb
movsb  # or mov (%esi),%al; mov %al,(%edi), but movsb looks discrete 
enough to me

instead (and yes, I know that my example is silly).
							Petr