mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	1vier1@web.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): Update Documentation
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:23:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <65a187c2-80de-2c6f-5f80-48c51f973d08@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191101164948.GD3603@willie-the-truck>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

Hi Will,

On 11/1/19 5:49 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Manfred,
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 02:33:01PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>> When adding the _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants of some atomic
>> operations, it was forgotten to update Documentation/memory_barrier.txt:
>>
>> smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() is now intended for all RMW operations
>> that do not imply a memory barrier.
> [...]
>
> Although I think this is correct, I really think we should instead refer to
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt and get rid of this out of memory-barriers.txt
> entirely. It's just duplication and is out of date.

So you would prefer the attached patch?

For me this would be fine, too.


--

     Manfred


[-- Attachment #2: 0001-smp_mb__-before-after-_atomic-Update-Documentation.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2346 bytes --]

From 8d2b219794221e3ef1a1ec90e0f4fe344af9a55d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:33:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): Update Documentation

When adding the _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants of some atomic
operations, it was forgotten to update Documentation/memory_barrier.txt:

smp_mb__before_atomic and smp_mb__after_atomic can be combined with
all RMW operations that do not imply memory barriers.

In order to avoid that this happens again:
Remove the paragraph from Documentation/memory_barrier.txt, the functions
are sufficiently documented in Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt

Fixes: 654672d4ba1a ("locking/atomics: Add _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants of some atomic operations")

Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 20 +-------------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1adbb8a371c7..16dfb4cde1e1 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1873,25 +1873,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
  (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
  (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
 
-     These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
-     decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
-     reference counting.  These functions do not imply memory barriers.
-
-     These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
-     value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
-
-     As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead
-     and then decrements the object's reference count:
-
-	obj->dead = 1;
-	smp_mb__before_atomic();
-	atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
-
-     This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set
-     *before* the reference counter is decremented.
-
-     See Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt for more information.
-
+     See Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt for information.
 
  (*) dma_wmb();
  (*) dma_rmb();
-- 
2.23.0


  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-06 19:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-20 12:33 [PATCH 0/5] V3: Clarify/standardize memory barriers for ipc Manfred Spraul
2019-10-20 12:33 ` [PATCH 1/5] smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): Update Documentation Manfred Spraul
2019-11-01 16:49   ` Will Deacon
2019-11-06 19:23     ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2019-11-07 11:22       ` Will Deacon
2019-10-20 12:33 ` [PATCH 2/5] ipc/mqueue.c: Remove duplicated code Manfred Spraul
2019-10-22 22:43   ` Andrew Morton
2019-10-20 12:33 ` [PATCH 3/5] ipc/mqueue.c: Update/document memory barriers Manfred Spraul
2019-10-20 12:33 ` [PATCH 4/5] ipc/msg.c: Update and document " Manfred Spraul
2019-10-20 12:33 ` [PATCH 5/5] ipc/sem.c: Document and update " Manfred Spraul

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=65a187c2-80de-2c6f-5f80-48c51f973d08@colorfullife.com \
    --to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=1vier1@web.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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®