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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 04/01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> If Will agrees, like the following?

Looks good to me, thanks ;)

>     documentation: memory-barriers: Fix smp_mb__before_spinlock() semantics
>
>     Our current documentation claims that, when followed by an ACQUIRE,
>     smp_mb__before_spinlock() orders prior loads against subsequent loads
>     and stores, which isn't the intent.  This commit therefore fixes the
>     documentation to state that this sequence orders only prior stores
>     against subsequent loads and stores.
>
>     In addition, the original intent of smp_mb__before_spinlock() was to only
>     order prior loads against subsequent stores, however, people have started
>     using it as if it ordered prior loads against subsequent loads and stores.
>     This commit therefore also updates smp_mb__before_spinlock()'s header
>     comment to reflect this new reality.
>
>     Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index 6974f1c2b4e1..52c320e3f107 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1784,10 +1784,9 @@ 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.
>
>   (2) RELEASE operation implication:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> index 3e18379dfa6f..0063b24b4f36 100644
> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ do {								\
>  /*
>   * Despite its name it doesn't necessarily has to be a full barrier.
>   * It should only guarantee that a STORE before the critical section
> - * can not be reordered with a LOAD inside this section.
> + * can not be reordered with LOADs and STOREs inside this section.
>   * spin_lock() is the one-way barrier, this LOAD can not escape out
>   * of the region. So the default implementation simply ensures that
>   * a STORE can not move into the critical section, smp_wmb() should
>

--
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/