[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191020123305.14715-2-manfred@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:33:01 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: 1vier1@....de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): Update Documentation
When adding the _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants of some atomic
operations, it was forgotten to update Documentation/memory_barrier.txt:
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() is now intended for all RMW operations
that do not imply a memory barrier.
1)
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_add();
2)
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_xchg_relaxed();
3)
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_fetch_add_relaxed();
Invalid would be:
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_set();
In addition, the patch splits the long sentence into multiple shorter
sentences.
Fixes: 654672d4ba1a ("locking/atomics: Add _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants of some atomic operations")
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 16 ++++++++++------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1adbb8a371c7..fe43f4b30907 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1873,12 +1873,16 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
(*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
(*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
- These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
- decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
- reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
-
- These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
- value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
+ These are for use with atomic RMW functions that do not imply memory
+ barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier. Examples for atomic
+ RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are e.g. add,
+ subtract, (failed) conditional operations, _relaxed functions,
+ but not atomic_read or atomic_set. A common example where a memory
+ barrier may be required is when atomic ops are used for reference
+ counting.
+
+ These are also used for atomic RMW bitop functions that do not imply a
+ memory barrier (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead
and then decrements the object's reference count:
--
2.21.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists