linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: [PATCH v3 12/19] tools/memory-model: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from informal doc
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:51:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200710165203.31284-13-will@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200710165203.31284-1-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.
-- 
2.27.0.383.g050319c2ae-goog


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-07-10 16:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-10 16:51 [PATCH 00/18] Allow architectures to override __READ_ONCE() Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 01/19] tools: bpf: Use local copy of headers including uapi/linux/filter.h Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 02/19] compiler.h: Split {READ,WRITE}_ONCE definitions out into rwonce.h Will Deacon
2020-07-13 12:23   ` boqun.feng
2020-07-20 15:55     ` Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 03/19] asm/rwonce: Allow __READ_ONCE to be overridden by the architecture Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 04/19] alpha: Override READ_ONCE() with barriered implementation Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 05/19] asm/rwonce: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() invocation Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 06/19] asm/rwonce: Don't pull <asm/barrier.h> into 'asm-generic/rwonce.h' Will Deacon
2020-07-10 17:06   ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-07-10 17:15     ` Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 07/19] vhost: Remove redundant use of read_barrier_depends() barrier Will Deacon
2020-07-13 11:27   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 08/19] alpha: Replace smp_read_barrier_depends() usage with smp_[r]mb() Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 09/19] locking/barriers: Remove definitions for [smp_]read_barrier_depends() Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 10/19] Documentation/barriers: Remove references to [smp_]read_barrier_depends() Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 11/19] Documentation/barriers/kokr: " Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 13/19] include/linux: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from comments Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 14/19] checkpatch: Remove checks relating to [smp_]read_barrier_depends() Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:51 ` [PATCH v3 15/19] arm64: Reduce the number of header files pulled into vmlinux.lds.S Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 16/19] arm64: alternatives: Split up alternative.h Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 17/19] arm64: cpufeatures: Add capability for LDAPR instruction Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 18/19] arm64: alternatives: Remove READ_ONCE() usage during patch operation Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 19/19] arm64: lto: Strengthen READ_ONCE() to acquire when CONFIG_LTO=y Will Deacon
2020-07-28 20:40   ` Pavel Machek
2020-07-13 10:34 ` [PATCH 00/18] Allow architectures to override __READ_ONCE() Peter Zijlstra

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=20200710165203.31284-13-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=joelaf@google.com \
    --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).