From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: [PATCH 11/18] tools/memory-model: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from informal doc Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:37:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20200630173734.14057-12-will@kernel.org> References: <20200630173734.14057-1-will@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20200630173734.14057-1-will@kernel.org> Sender: linux-alpha-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Will Deacon , Sami Tolvanen , Nick Desaulniers , Kees Cook , Marco Elver , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Matt Turner , Ivan Kokshaysky , Richard Henderson , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Arnd Bergmann , Boqun Feng , Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.orgv List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org smp_read_barrier_depends() has gone the way of mmiowb() and so many esoteric memory barriers before it. Drop the two mentions of this deceased barrier from the LKMM informal explanation document. Acked-by: Alan Stern Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Will Deacon --- .../Documentation/explanation.txt | 26 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt index e91a2eb19592..01adf9e0ebac 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt @@ -1122,12 +1122,10 @@ maintain at least the appearance of FIFO order. In practice, this difficulty is solved by inserting a special fence between P1's two loads when the kernel is compiled for the Alpha architecture. In fact, as of version 4.15, the kernel automatically -adds this fence (called smp_read_barrier_depends() and defined as -nothing at all on non-Alpha builds) after every READ_ONCE() and atomic -load. The effect of the fence is to cause the CPU not to execute any -po-later instructions until after the local cache has finished -processing all the stores it has already received. Thus, if the code -was changed to: +adds this fence after every READ_ONCE() and atomic load on Alpha. The +effect of the fence is to cause the CPU not to execute any po-later +instructions until after the local cache has finished processing all +the stores it has already received. Thus, if the code was changed to: P1() { @@ -1146,14 +1144,14 @@ READ_ONCE() or another synchronization primitive rather than accessed directly. The LKMM requires that smp_rmb(), acquire fences, and strong fences -share this property with smp_read_barrier_depends(): They do not allow -the CPU to execute any po-later instructions (or po-later loads in the -case of smp_rmb()) until all outstanding stores have been processed by -the local cache. In the case of a strong fence, the CPU first has to -wait for all of its po-earlier stores to propagate to every other CPU -in the system; then it has to wait for the local cache to process all -the stores received as of that time -- not just the stores received -when the strong fence began. +share this property: They do not allow the CPU to execute any po-later +instructions (or po-later loads in the case of smp_rmb()) until all +outstanding stores have been processed by the local cache. In the +case of a strong fence, the CPU first has to wait for all of its +po-earlier stores to propagate to every other CPU in the system; then +it has to wait for the local cache to process all the stores received +as of that time -- not just the stores received when the strong fence +began. And of course, none of this matters for any architecture other than Alpha. -- 2.27.0.212.ge8ba1cc988-goog