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:   Mon, 6 May 2019 18:42:38 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: atomic_t.txt: Explain ordering
 provided by smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
Message-ID: <20190506164238.GA4956@andrea>
References: <20190503163411.GH2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1905031309300.1437-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1905031309300.1437-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 01:13:44PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> The description of smp_mb__before_atomic() and smp_mb__after_atomic()
> in Documentation/atomic_t.txt is slightly terse and misleading.  It
> does not clearly state which other instructions are ordered by these
> barriers.
> 
> This improves the text to make the actual ordering implications clear,
> and also to explain how these barriers differ from a RELEASE or
> ACQUIRE ordering.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

I understand that this does indeed better describe the intended semantics:

Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>

Now we would only need to fix the implementations and a few (mis)uses. ;-)

  Andrea


> 
> ---
> 
> v2: Update the explanation: These barriers do provide order for 
> accesses on the far side of the atomic RMW operation.
> 
> 
>  Documentation/atomic_t.txt |   17 +++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: usb-devel/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-devel.orig/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ usb-devel/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -170,8 +170,14 @@ The barriers:
>  
>    smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
>  
> -only apply to the RMW ops and can be used to augment/upgrade the ordering
> -inherent to the used atomic op. These barriers provide a full smp_mb().
> +only apply to the RMW atomic ops and can be used to augment/upgrade the
> +ordering inherent to the op. These barriers act almost like a full smp_mb():
> +smp_mb__before_atomic() orders all earlier accesses against the RMW op
> +itself and all accesses following it, and smp_mb__after_atomic() orders all
> +later accesses against the RMW op and all accesses preceding it. However,
> +accesses between the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() and the RMW op are not
> +ordered, so it is advisable to place the barrier right next to the RMW atomic
> +op whenever possible.
>  
>  These helper barriers exist because architectures have varying implicit
>  ordering on their SMP atomic primitives. For example our TSO architectures
> @@ -195,7 +201,9 @@ Further, while something like:
>    atomic_dec(&X);
>  
>  is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than
> -a RELEASE. Similarly for something like:
> +a RELEASE because it orders preceding instructions against both the read
> +and write parts of the atomic_dec(), and against all following instructions
> +as well. Similarly, something like:
>  
>    atomic_inc(&X);
>    smp_mb__after_atomic();
> @@ -227,7 +235,8 @@ strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illus
>  
>  This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() --
>  (void)atomic_fetch_inc_acquire() for instance -- would allow the outcome,
> -since then:
> +because it would not order the W part of the RMW against the following
> +WRITE_ONCE.  Thus:
>  
>    P1			P2
>  
>