Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: How can READ_ONCE() and  WRITE_ONCE() provide cache coherence?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:20:01 +0100
Message-ID: <r6xXP-JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 32
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Xref: csiph.com linux.kernel:1344684

Hi,

I just can't understand how this kind of compiler barrier macros may 
provide any form of cache coherence. Sure, such kind of compiler barrier 
is necessary to "reliably" access a variable from multiple CPUs. But why 
it is stated that these macros *provide* cache coherence?

 From Documentation/memory-barriers.txt:
> The READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() functions can prevent any number of
> optimizations that, while perfectly safe in single-threaded code, can
> be fatal in concurrent code.  Here are some examples of these sorts
> of optimizations:
>
>  (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder loads and stores
>      to the same variable, and in some cases, the CPU is within its
>      rights to reorder loads to the same variable.  This means that
>      the following code:
>
>     a[0] = x;
>     a[1] = x;
>
>      Might result in an older value of x stored in a[1] than in a[0].
>      Prevent both the compiler and the CPU from doing this as follows:
>
>     a[0] = READ_ONCE(x);
>     a[1] = READ_ONCE(x);
>
>      In short, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() provide cache coherence for
>      accesses from multiple CPUs to a single variable.

Thanks,
Sergey