From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933838AbcBZVO1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:14:27 -0500
Received: from mail-lf0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]:35198 "EHLO
	mail-lf0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755242AbcBZVOZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:14:25 -0500
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
Subject: Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: How can READ_ONCE() and
 WRITE_ONCE() provide cache coherence?
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <56D0C02D.6000905@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 00:14:21 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

I just can't understand how this kind of compiler barrier macros may 
provide any form of cache coherence. Sure, such kind of compiler barrier 
is necessary to "reliably" access a variable from multiple CPUs. But why 
it is stated that these macros *provide* cache coherence?

 From Documentation/memory-barriers.txt:
> The READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() functions can prevent any number of
> optimizations that, while perfectly safe in single-threaded code, can
> be fatal in concurrent code.  Here are some examples of these sorts
> of optimizations:
>
>  (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder loads and stores
>      to the same variable, and in some cases, the CPU is within its
>      rights to reorder loads to the same variable.  This means that
>      the following code:
>
>     a[0] = x;
>     a[1] = x;
>
>      Might result in an older value of x stored in a[1] than in a[0].
>      Prevent both the compiler and the CPU from doing this as follows:
>
>     a[0] = READ_ONCE(x);
>     a[1] = READ_ONCE(x);
>
>      In short, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() provide cache coherence for
>      accesses from multiple CPUs to a single variable.

Thanks,
Sergey