diff options
author | Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> | 2018-06-07 13:01:57 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2018-07-13 01:39:23 +0300 |
commit | 264d4f88ad5ba0d3c890a70a1216b4e87e5c26ec (patch) | |
tree | 659d10c8f3612dec81d465cd0d8fb98087f59a61 /Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt | |
parent | 67abb96cbf307e16e3c6d1a0328ece085b5ce94c (diff) | |
download | linux-264d4f88ad5ba0d3c890a70a1216b4e87e5c26ec.tar.xz |
doc: Update synchronize_rcu() definition in whatisRCU.txt
The synchronize_rcu() definition based on RW-locks in whatisRCU.txt
does not meet the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" in Requirements.html;
for example, the following SB-like test:
P0: P1:
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
synchronize_rcu(); smp_mb();
r0 = READ_ONCE(y); r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
should not be allowed to reach the state "r0 = 0 AND r1 = 0", but
the current write_lock()+write_unlock() definition can not ensure
this. This commit therefore inserts an smp_mb__after_spinlock()
in order to cause this synchronize_rcu() implementation to provide
this memory-barrier guarantee.
Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions