locking/atomics: Rework ordering barriers

Currently architectures can override __atomic_op_*() to define the barriers
used before/after a relaxed atomic when used to build acquire/release/fence
variants.

This has the unfortunate property of requiring the architecture to define the
full wrapper for the atomics, rather than just the barriers they care about,
and gets in the way of generating atomics which can be easily read.

Instead, this patch has architectures define an optional set of barriers:

* __atomic_acquire_fence()
* __atomic_release_fence()
* __atomic_pre_full_fence()
* __atomic_post_full_fence()

... which <linux/atomic.h> uses to build the wrappers.

It would be nice if we could undef these, along with the __atomic_op_*()
wrappers, but that would break the cmpxchg() wrappers, which are written
in preprocessor. Undefs would have been nice, but alas.

There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: andy.shevchenko@gmail.com
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: aryabinin@virtuozzo.com
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com
Cc: dvyukov@google.com
Cc: glider@google.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716113017.3909-7-mark.rutland@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 22 insertions, 16 deletions

diff --git a/include/linux/atomic.h b/include/linux/atomic.h
index 8e04f1f69bd9..1e8e88bdaf09 100644
--- a/include/linux/atomic.h
+++ b/include/linux/atomic.h
@@ -38,40 +38,46 @@
  * barriers on top of the relaxed variant. In the case where the relaxed
  * variant is already fully ordered, no additional barriers are needed.
  *
- * Besides, if an arch has a special barrier for acquire/release, it could
- * implement its own __atomic_op_* and use the same framework for building
- * variants
- *
- * If an architecture overrides __atomic_op_acquire() it will probably want
- * to define smp_mb__after_spinlock().
+ * If an architecture overrides __atomic_acquire_fence() it will probably
+ * want to define smp_mb__after_spinlock().
  */
-#ifndef __atomic_op_acquire
+#ifndef __atomic_acquire_fence
+#define __atomic_acquire_fence		smp_mb__after_atomic
+#endif
+
+#ifndef __atomic_release_fence
+#define __atomic_release_fence		smp_mb__before_atomic
+#endif
+
+#ifndef __atomic_pre_full_fence
+#define __atomic_pre_full_fence		smp_mb__before_atomic
+#endif
+
+#ifndef __atomic_post_full_fence
+#define __atomic_post_full_fence	smp_mb__after_atomic
+#endif
+
 #define __atomic_op_acquire(op, args...)				\
 ({									\
 	typeof(op##_relaxed(args)) __ret  = op##_relaxed(args);		\
-	smp_mb__after_atomic();						\
+	__atomic_acquire_fence();					\
 	__ret;								\
 })
-#endif
 
-#ifndef __atomic_op_release
 #define __atomic_op_release(op, args...)				\
 ({									\
-	smp_mb__before_atomic();					\
+	__atomic_release_fence();					\
 	op##_relaxed(args);						\
 })
-#endif
 
-#ifndef __atomic_op_fence
 #define __atomic_op_fence(op, args...)					\
 ({									\
 	typeof(op##_relaxed(args)) __ret;				\
-	smp_mb__before_atomic();					\
+	__atomic_pre_full_fence();					\
 	__ret = op##_relaxed(args);					\
-	smp_mb__after_atomic();						\
+	__atomic_post_full_fence();					\
 	__ret;								\
 })
-#endif
 
 /* atomic_add_return_relaxed */
 #ifndef atomic_add_return_relaxed