Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:36:18AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > The formula was more along the line of "do not assume either of these
> > > cases to hold; use barrier() is you need an unconditional barrier..."
> > > AFAICT, all current implementations of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
> > > provides a compiler barrier with either barrier() or "memory" clobber.
> > 
> > Well, we have two reasonable choices: Say that 
> > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic will always provide a compiler barrier, 
> > or don't say this.  I see no point in saying that the combination of 
> > Before-atomic followed by RMW provides a barrier.
> 
> ;-/ I'm fine with the first choice. I don't see how the second choice
> (this proposal/patch) would be consistent with some documentation and
> with the current implementations; for example,
> 
> 1) Documentation/atomic_t.txt says:
> 
> Thus:
> 
>   atomic_fetch_add();
> 
> is equivalent to:
> 
>   smp_mb__before_atomic();
>   atomic_fetch_add_relaxed();
>   smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 
> [...]
> 
> 2) Some implementations of the _relaxed() variants do not provide any
> compiler barrier currently.

But don't all implementations of smp_mb__before_atomic() and
smp_mb__after_atomic() currently supply a compiler barrier?

							Thanx, Paul