The patch titled
Subject: smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): update Documentation
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
smp_mb__beforeafter_atomic-update-documentation.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/smp_mb__beforeafter_atomic-update-documentation.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/smp_mb__beforeafter_atomic-update-documentation.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191020123305.14715-2-manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 654672d4ba1a ("locking/atomics: Add _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants of some atomic operations")
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <1vier1@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 14 +++++++++-----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt~smp_mb__beforeafter_atomic-update-documentation
+++ a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1873,12 +1873,16 @@ There are some more advanced barrier fun
(*) 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 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 bitop functions that do not return a
- value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
+ 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:
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
smp_mb__beforeafter_atomic-update-documentation.patch
ipc-mqueuec-update-document-memory-barriers.patch
ipc-msgc-update-and-document-memory-barriers.patch
ipc-semc-document-and-update-memory-barriers.patch
