On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 06:52:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 05:11:27AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:52:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 03:24:07AM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > The compiler has the ability to cause misordering by destroying
> > > > address-dependency barriers if comparison operations are used. Add a
> > > > note about this to memory-barriers.txt and point to rcu-dereference.rst
> > > > for more information.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 5 +++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > > > index 06e14efd8662..acc8ec5ce563 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > > > @@ -435,6 +435,11 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
> > > > variables such as READ_ONCE() and rcu_dereference() provide implicit
> > > > address-dependency barriers.
> > > >
> > > > + [!] Note that address dependency barriers can be destroyed by comparison
> > > > + of a pointer obtained by a marked accessor such as READ_ONCE() or
> > > > + rcu_dereference() with some value. For an example of this, see
> > > > + rcu_dereference.rst (part where the comparison of pointers is discussed).
> > >
> > > Hmmm...
> > >
> > > Given that this is in a section marked "historical" (for the old
> > > smp_read_barrier_depends() API), why not instead add a pointer to
> > > Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst to the beginning of the section,
> > > noted as the updated material?
> >
> > Sounds good. There's also another section in the same file on Address
> > dependency barriers (also marked historical). So something like the
> > following?
>
> Given a Signed-off-by and so forth, I would be happy to take this one.
Thank you for helping me improve the docs, here it goes:
---8<-----------------------
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH] docs: memory-barriers: Add note on compiler transformation
and address deps
The compiler has the ability to cause misordering by destroying
address-dependency barriers if comparison operations are used. Add a
note about this to memory-barriers.txt in the beginning of both the
historical address-dependency sections and point to rcu-dereference.rst
for more information.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index acc8ec5ce563..ba50220716ca 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -396,6 +396,10 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
(2) Address-dependency barriers (historical).
+ [!] This section is marked as HISTORICAL: For more up-to-date
+ information, including how compiler transformations related to pointer
+ comparisons can sometimes cause problems, see
+ Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
An address-dependency barrier is a weaker form of read barrier. In the
case where two loads are performed such that the second depends on the
@@ -561,6 +565,9 @@ There are certain things that the Linux kernel memory barriers do not guarantee:
ADDRESS-DEPENDENCY BARRIERS (HISTORICAL)
----------------------------------------
+[!] This section is marked as HISTORICAL: For more up-to-date information,
+including how compiler transformations related to pointer comparisons can
+sometimes cause problems, see Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
As of v4.15 of the Linux kernel, an smp_mb() was added to READ_ONCE() for
DEC Alpha, which means that about the only people who need to pay attention
--
2.41.0.585.gd2178a4bd4-goog
