From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
bobby.prani@gmail.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] documentation: memory-barriers: Fix smp_mb__before_spinlock() semantics
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 14:23:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1431465787-32541-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150512212234.GA32351@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
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@redhat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 7 +++----
include/linux/spinlock.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index f95746189b5d..1f362fd2ecb4 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
--
1.8.1.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-12 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-12 21:22 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/3] Documentation updates for 4.2 Paul E. McKenney
2015-05-12 21:23 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2015-05-12 21:23 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] documentation: Update rcu_dereference.txt based on WG21 discussions Paul E. McKenney
2015-05-13 18:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-05-14 20:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-05-12 21:23 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/3] documentation: State that rcu_dereference() reloads pointer Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1431465787-32541-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®