Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 02:38:26 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: Update synchronize_rcu() definition in whatisRCU.txt
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <1528365717-7213-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1528365717-7213-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180608093826.GT3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> The synchronize_rcu() definition based on RW-locks in whatisRCU.txt
> does not meet the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" in Requirements.html;
> for example, the following SB-like test:
> 
>     P0:                      P1:
> 
>     WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);        WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
>     synchronize_rcu();       smp_mb();
>     r0 = READ_ONCE(y);       r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
> 
> should not be allowed to reach the state "r0 = 0 AND r1 = 0", but
> the current write_lock()+write_unlock() definition can not ensure
> this. Remedies this by inserting an smp_mb__after_spinlock().
> 
> Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>

Queued for review, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> ---
>  Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 16 ++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
> index a27fbfb0efb82..86a54ff911fc2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
> @@ -586,6 +586,7 @@ It is extremely simple:
>  	void synchronize_rcu(void)
>  	{
>  		write_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
> +		smp_mb__after_spinlock();
>  		write_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
>  	}
> 
> @@ -607,12 +608,15 @@ don't forget about them when submitting patches making use of RCU!]
> 
>  The rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() primitive read-acquire
>  and release a global reader-writer lock.  The synchronize_rcu()
> -primitive write-acquires this same lock, then immediately releases
> -it.  This means that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side
> -critical sections that were in progress before synchronize_rcu() was
> -called are guaranteed to have completed -- there is no way that
> -synchronize_rcu() would have been able to write-acquire the lock
> -otherwise.
> +primitive write-acquires this same lock, then releases it.  This means
> +that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side critical sections
> +that were in progress before synchronize_rcu() was called are guaranteed
> +to have completed -- there is no way that synchronize_rcu() would have
> +been able to write-acquire the lock otherwise.  The smp_mb__after_spinlock()
> +promotes synchronize_rcu() to a full memory barrier in compliance with
> +the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" listed in:
> +
> +	Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html.
> 
>  It is possible to nest rcu_read_lock(), since reader-writer locks may
>  be recursively acquired.  Note also that rcu_read_lock() is immune
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>