Re: [RESEND PATCH] documentation: memory-barriers: fix smp_mb__before_spinlock() semantics

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/31, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> Could somebody pick this up please? I guess I could route it via the arm64
> tree with an Ack, but I'd rather it went through Paul or -tip.

I think this would be the best route ;)

> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1768,10 +1768,9 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
>  
>       Memory operations issued before the ACQUIRE may be completed after
>       the ACQUIRE operation has completed.  An smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
> -     combined with a following ACQUIRE, orders prior loads against
> -     subsequent loads and stores and also orders prior stores against
> -     subsequent stores.  Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!  The
> -     smp_mb__before_spinlock() primitive is free on many architectures.
> +     combined with a following ACQUIRE, orders prior stores against
> +     subsequent loads and stores. Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!
> +     The smp_mb__before_spinlock() primitive is free on many architectures.

I agree, this description was always wrong.

But perhaps you can also update the comment above smp_mb__before_spinlock?
It only documents the STORE - LOAD serialization, and this was on purpose.

But people started to use this helper assuming that it can also serialize
the STOREs. Perhaps the changelog could also mention this fact, this is why
we need to update this comment and fix memory-barriers.txt.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/