x86/atomic: Fix smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()

Recent probing at the Linux Kernel Memory Model uncovered a
'surprise'. Strongly ordered architectures where the atomic RmW
primitive implies full memory ordering and
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() are a simple barrier() (such as x86)
fail for:

	*x = 1;
	atomic_inc(u);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	r0 = *y;

Because, while the atomic_inc() implies memory order, it
(surprisingly) does not provide a compiler barrier. This then allows
the compiler to re-order like so:

	atomic_inc(u);
	*x = 1;
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	r0 = *y;

Which the CPU is then allowed to re-order (under TSO rules) like:

	atomic_inc(u);
	r0 = *y;
	*x = 1;

And this very much was not intended. Therefore strengthen the atomic
RmW ops to include a compiler barrier.

NOTE: atomic_{or,and,xor} and the bitops already had the compiler
barrier.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
index 89eae7f6b360..d439a0fdbe47 100644
--- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
+++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
@@ -196,6 +196,9 @@ These helper barriers exist because architectures have varying implicit
 ordering on their SMP atomic primitives. For example our TSO architectures
 provide full ordered atomics and these barriers are no-ops.
 
+NOTE: when the atomic RmW ops are fully ordered, they should also imply a
+compiler barrier.
+
 Thus:
 
   atomic_fetch_add();