From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@android.com, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 11/18] tools/memory-model: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from informal doc
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:37:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200630173734.14057-12-will@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200630173734.14057-1-will@kernel.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 <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
---
.../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
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-30 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-30 17:37 [PATCH 00/18] Allow architectures to override __READ_ONCE() Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 01/18] tools: bpf: Use local copy of headers including uapi/linux/filter.h Will Deacon
2020-07-01 16:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 02/18] compiler.h: Split {READ, WRITE}_ONCE definitions out into rwonce.h Will Deacon
2020-06-30 19:11 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-07-01 10:16 ` [PATCH 02/18] compiler.h: Split {READ,WRITE}_ONCE " Will Deacon
2020-07-01 11:33 ` [PATCH 02/18] compiler.h: Split {READ, WRITE}_ONCE " Arnd Bergmann
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 03/18] asm/rwonce: Allow __READ_ONCE to be overridden by the architecture Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 04/18] alpha: Override READ_ONCE() with barriered implementation Will Deacon
2020-07-02 9:32 ` Mark Rutland
2020-07-02 9:48 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-02 10:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-07-02 11:18 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-02 11:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-07-02 14:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-02 14:55 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-02 15:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 05/18] asm/rwonce: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() invocation Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 06/18] vhost: Remove redundant use of read_barrier_depends() barrier Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 07/18] alpha: Replace smp_read_barrier_depends() usage with smp_[r]mb() Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 08/18] locking/barriers: Remove definitions for [smp_]read_barrier_depends() Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 09/18] Documentation/barriers: Remove references to [smp_]read_barrier_depends() Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 10/18] Documentation/barriers/kokr: " Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 12/18] include/linux: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from comments Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 13/18] checkpatch: Remove checks relating to [smp_]read_barrier_depends() Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 14/18] arm64: Reduce the number of header files pulled into vmlinux.lds.S Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 15/18] arm64: alternatives: Split up alternative.h Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 16/18] arm64: cpufeatures: Add capability for LDAPR instruction Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 17/18] arm64: alternatives: Remove READ_ONCE() usage during patch operation Will Deacon
2020-06-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 18/18] arm64: lto: Strengthen READ_ONCE() to acquire when CLANG_LTO=y Will Deacon
2020-06-30 19:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-07-01 10:19 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-01 10:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-06-30 19:47 ` Marco Elver
2020-06-30 20:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-30 22:57 ` Sami Tolvanen
2020-07-01 10:25 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-01 10:24 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-01 17:07 ` Dave P Martin
2020-07-02 7:23 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-06 16:00 ` Dave Martin
2020-07-06 16:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-06 17:05 ` Dave Martin
2020-07-06 17:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-07 10:29 ` Dave Martin
2020-07-07 22:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-07 23:01 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-07-08 7:15 ` Marco Elver
2020-07-08 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-08 18:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-06 18:35 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-06 19:23 ` Marco Elver
2020-07-06 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-06 16:08 ` Dave Martin
2020-07-06 18:35 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-07 10:10 ` Dave Martin
2020-07-01 7:38 ` [PATCH 00/18] Allow architectures to override __READ_ONCE() Josh Triplett
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=20200630173734.14057-12-will@kernel.org \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).