Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | [PATCH tip/core/rcu 5/5] doc: Call out smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() transitivity | Date | Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:32:43 -0700 |
| |
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Although "full barrier" should be interpreted as providing transitivity, it is worth eliminating any possible confusion. This commit therefore adds "(including transitivity)" to eliminate any possible confusion.
Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt index 470c07c868e4..318523872db5 100644 --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt @@ -1858,11 +1858,12 @@ Similarly, the reverse case of a RELEASE followed by an ACQUIRE does not imply a full memory barrier. If it is necessary for a RELEASE-ACQUIRE pair to produce a full barrier, the ACQUIRE can be followed by an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() invocation. This will produce a full barrier -if either (a) the RELEASE and the ACQUIRE are executed by the same -CPU or task, or (b) the RELEASE and ACQUIRE act on the same variable. -The smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() primitive is free on many architectures. -Without smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), the CPU's execution of the critical -sections corresponding to the RELEASE and the ACQUIRE can cross, so that: +(including transitivity) if either (a) the RELEASE and the ACQUIRE are +executed by the same CPU or task, or (b) the RELEASE and ACQUIRE act on +the same variable. The smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() primitive is free +on many architectures. Without smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), the CPU's +execution of the critical sections corresponding to the RELEASE and the +ACQUIRE can cross, so that: *A = a; RELEASE M -- 1.8.1.5
| |