[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/27] doc: Update synchronize_rcu() definition in whatisRCU.txt

Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-26T00:38:01Z

From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>

The synchronize_rcu() definition based on RW-locks in whatisRCU.txt
does not meet the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" in Requirements.html;
for example, the following SB-like test:

P0: P1:

WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
synchronize_rcu(); smp_mb();
r0 = READ_ONCE(y); r1 = READ_ONCE(x);

should not be allowed to reach the state "r0 = 0 AND r1 = 0", but
the current write_lock()+write_unlock() definition can not ensure
this. This commit therefore inserts an smp_mb__after_spinlock()
in order to cause this synchronize_rcu() implementation to provide
this memory-barrier guarantee.

Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 16 ++++++++++------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
index 65eb856526b7..94288f1b8759 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
@@ -588,6 +588,7 @@ It is extremely simple:
void synchronize_rcu(void)
{
write_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
+ smp_mb__after_spinlock();
write_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
}

@@ -609,12 +610,15 @@ don't forget about them when submitting patches making use of RCU!]

The rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() primitive read-acquire
and release a global reader-writer lock. The synchronize_rcu()
-primitive write-acquires this same lock, then immediately releases
-it. This means that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side
-critical sections that were in progress before synchronize_rcu() was
-called are guaranteed to have completed -- there is no way that
-synchronize_rcu() would have been able to write-acquire the lock
-otherwise.
+primitive write-acquires this same lock, then releases it. This means
+that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side critical sections
+that were in progress before synchronize_rcu() was called are guaranteed
+to have completed -- there is no way that synchronize_rcu() would have
+been able to write-acquire the lock otherwise. The smp_mb__after_spinlock()
+promotes synchronize_rcu() to a full memory barrier in compliance with
+the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" listed in:
+
+ Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html.

It is possible to nest rcu_read_lock(), since reader-writer locks may
be recursively acquired. Note also that rcu_read_lock() is immune
--
2.17.1