summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/memory-model/Documentation/ordering.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/memory-model/Documentation/ordering.txt')
-rw-r--r--tools/memory-model/Documentation/ordering.txt22
1 files changed, 11 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/ordering.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/ordering.txt
index 9b0949d3f5ec..7ab3744929d8 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/ordering.txt
+++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/ordering.txt
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ The Linux kernel's compiler barrier is barrier(). This primitive
prohibits compiler code-motion optimizations that might move memory
references across the point in the code containing the barrier(), but
does not constrain hardware memory ordering. For example, this can be
-used to prevent to compiler from moving code across an infinite loop:
+used to prevent the compiler from moving code across an infinite loop:
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
while (dontstop)
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ different pieces of the concurrent algorithm. The variable stored to
by the smp_store_release(), in this case "y", will normally be used in
an acquire operation in other parts of the concurrent algorithm.
-To see the performance advantages, suppose that the above example read
+To see the performance advantages, suppose that the above example reads
from "x" instead of writing to it. Then an smp_wmb() could not guarantee
ordering, and an smp_mb() would be needed instead:
@@ -394,17 +394,17 @@ from the value returned by the rcu_dereference() or srcu_dereference()
to that subsequent memory access.
A call to rcu_dereference() for a given RCU-protected pointer is
-usually paired with a call to a call to rcu_assign_pointer() for that
-same pointer in much the same way that a call to smp_load_acquire() is
-paired with a call to smp_store_release(). Calls to rcu_dereference()
-and rcu_assign_pointer are often buried in other APIs, for example,
+usually paired with a call to rcu_assign_pointer() for that same pointer
+in much the same way that a call to smp_load_acquire() is paired with
+a call to smp_store_release(). Calls to rcu_dereference() and
+rcu_assign_pointer() are often buried in other APIs, for example,
the RCU list API members defined in include/linux/rculist.h. For more
information, please see the docbook headers in that file, the most
-recent LWN article on the RCU API (https://lwn.net/Articles/777036/),
+recent LWN article on the RCU API (https://lwn.net/Articles/988638/),
and of course the material in Documentation/RCU.
If the pointer value is manipulated between the rcu_dereference()
-that returned it and a later dereference(), please read
+that returned it and a later rcu_dereference(), please read
Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst. It can also be quite helpful to
review uses in the Linux kernel.
@@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ described earlier in this document.
These operations come in three categories:
o Marked writes, such as WRITE_ONCE() and atomic_set(). These
- primitives required the compiler to emit the corresponding store
+ primitives require the compiler to emit the corresponding store
instructions in the expected execution order, thus suppressing
a number of destructive optimizations. However, they provide no
hardware ordering guarantees, and in fact many CPUs will happily
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ o Marked writes, such as WRITE_ONCE() and atomic_set(). These
operations, unless these operations are to the same variable.
o Marked reads, such as READ_ONCE() and atomic_read(). These
- primitives required the compiler to emit the corresponding load
+ primitives require the compiler to emit the corresponding load
instructions in the expected execution order, thus suppressing
a number of destructive optimizations. However, they provide no
hardware ordering guarantees, and in fact many CPUs will happily
@@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ of the old value and the new value.
Unmarked C-language accesses are unordered, and are also subject to
any number of compiler optimizations, many of which can break your
-concurrent code. It is possible to used unmarked C-language accesses for
+concurrent code. It is possible to use unmarked C-language accesses for
shared variables that are subject to concurrent access, but great care
is required on an ongoing basis. The compiler-constraining barrier()
primitive can be helpful, as can the various ordering primitives discussed