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;
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/27] doc: Update synchronize_rcu() definition in whatisRCU.txt
Date:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:35:07 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20180626003448.GA26209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20180626003448.GA26209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <20180626003513.27812-21-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>

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.  This commit therefore inserts an smp_mb__after_spinlock()
in order to cause this synchronize_rcu() implementation to provide
this memory-barrier guarantee.

Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
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>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 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 65eb856526b7..94288f1b8759 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
@@ -588,6 +588,7 @@ It is extremely simple:
 	void synchronize_rcu(void)
 	{
 		write_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
+		smp_mb__after_spinlock();
 		write_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
 	}
 
@@ -609,12 +610,15 @@ 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
-- 
2.17.1