Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to implement read_barrier_depends() and > smp_read_barrier_depends(), but SYNC_RMB probably does not suffice. > The reason for this is that smp_read_barrier_depends() must order the > pointer load against any subsequent read or write through a dereference > of that pointer. For example: > > p = READ_ONCE(gp); > smp_rmb(); > r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_rmb(). */ > p->b = 42; /* NOT ordered by smp_rmb(), BUG!!! */ > r2 = x; /* ordered by smp_rmb(), but doesn't need to be. */ > > In contrast: > > p = READ_ONCE(gp); > smp_read_barrier_depends(); > r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */ > p->b = 42; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */ > r2 = x; /* not ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(), which is OK. */ > > Again, if your hardware maintains local ordering for address > and data dependencies, you can have read_barrier_depends() and > smp_read_barrier_depends() be no-ops like they are for most > architectures. > > Does that help? This is crazy! smp_rmb started out being strictly stronger than smp_read_barrier_depends, when did this stop being the case? -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
