Commit ca110694 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar

Documentation/locking/atomic: Finish the document...

Julia reported that the document looked unfinished, and it is. I
forgot to include the example cooked up by Paul here:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170731174345.GL3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com

and I added an explicit example showing how, while it is an ACQUIRE
pattern, it really does provide an MB.
Reported-by: 's avatarJulia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
Signed-off-by: 's avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: 's avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent e6f3faa7
......@@ -197,4 +197,46 @@ Further, while something like:
is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than
a RELEASE. Similarly for something like:
atomic_inc(&X);
smp_mb__after_atomic();
is an ACQUIRE pattern (though very much not typical), but again the barrier is
strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illustrated:
C strong-acquire
{
}
P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
{
r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
smp_rmb();
r1 = atomic_read(y);
}
P2(int *x, atomic_t *y)
{
atomic_inc(y);
smp_mb__after_atomic();
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
}
exists
(r0=1 /\ r1=0)
This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() --
(void)atomic_fetch_inc_acquire() for instance -- would allow the outcome,
since then:
P1 P2
t = LL.acq *y (0)
t++;
*x = 1;
r0 = *x (1)
RMB
r1 = *y (0)
SC *y, t;
is allowed.
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment