Re: [PATCH v6 8/9] rust: sync: Add memory barriers

["Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>]

On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 8:00 AM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/sync/barrier.rs b/rust/kernel/sync/barrier.rs
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..df4015221503
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/rust/kernel/sync/barrier.rs
> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +//! Memory barriers.
> +//!
> +//! These primitives have the same semantics as their C counterparts: and the precise definitions
> +//! of semantics can be found at [`LKMM`].
> +//!
> +//! [`LKMM`]: srctree/tools/memory-model/
> +
> +/// A compiler barrier.
> +///
> +/// A barrier that prevents compiler from reordering memory accesses across the barrier.
> +pub(crate) fn barrier() {
> +    // By default, Rust inline asms are treated as being able to access any memory or flags, hence
> +    // it suffices as a compiler barrier.

I don't know about this, but it also isn't my area of expertise... I
think I heard Ralf talk about this at Rust Week, but I don't remember...

> +    //
> +    // SAFETY: An empty asm block should be safe.

    // SAFETY: An empty asm block.

> +    unsafe {
> +        core::arch::asm!("");
> +    }

    unsafe { core::arch::asm!("") };

> +}
> +
> +/// A full memory barrier.
> +///
> +/// A barrier that prevents compiler and CPU from reordering memory accesses across the barrier.
> +pub fn smp_mb() {
> +    if cfg!(CONFIG_SMP) {
> +        // SAFETY: `smp_mb()` is safe to call.
> +        unsafe {
> +            bindings::smp_mb();

Does this really work? How does the Rust compiler know this is a memory
barrier?

---
Cheers,
Benno

> +        }
> +    } else {
> +        barrier();
> +    }
> +}