Memory-barrier documentation updates + smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

index 020cccdbdd0c..1d067235b0bc 100644
@@ -194,18 +194,22 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
  (*) On any given CPU, dependent memory accesses will be issued in order, with
      respect to itself.  This means that for:
 
-	Q = P; D = *Q;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(Q) = P; smp_read_barrier_depends(); D = ACCESS_ONCE(*Q);
 
      the CPU will issue the following memory operations:
 
 	Q = LOAD P, D = LOAD *Q
 
-     and always in that order.
+     and always in that order.  On most systems, smp_read_barrier_depends()
+     does nothing, but it is required for DEC Alpha.  The ACCESS_ONCE()
+     is required to prevent compiler mischief.  Please note that you
+     should normally use something like rcu_dereference() instead of
+     open-coding smp_read_barrier_depends().
 
  (*) Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will appear to be
      ordered within that CPU.  This means that for:
 
-	a = *X; *X = b;
+	a = ACCESS_ONCE(*X); ACCESS_ONCE(*X) = b;
 
      the CPU will only issue the following sequence of memory operations:
 

@@ -213,7 +217,7 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
 
      And for:
 
-	*X = c; d = *X;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*X) = c; d = ACCESS_ONCE(*X);
 
      the CPU will only issue:
 

@@ -224,6 +228,41 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
 
 And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
 
+ (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that the compiler will do what you want with
+     memory references that are not protected by ACCESS_ONCE().  Without
+     ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler is within its rights to do all sorts
+     of "creative" transformations:
+
+     (-) Repeat the load, possibly getting a different value on the second
+         and subsequent loads.  This is especially prone to happen when
+	 register pressure is high.
+
+     (-) Merge adjacent loads and stores to the same location.  The most
+         familiar example is the transformation from:
+
+		while (a)
+			do_something();
+
+         to something like:
+
+		if (a)
+			for (;;)
+				do_something();
+
+         Using ACCESS_ONCE() as follows prevents this sort of optimization:
+
+		while (ACCESS_ONCE(a))
+			do_something();
+
+     (-) "Store tearing", where a single store in the source code is split
+         into smaller stores in the object code.  Note that gcc really
+	 will do this on some architectures when storing certain constants.
+	 It can be cheaper to do a series of immediate stores than to
+	 form the constant in a register and then to store that register.
+
+     (-) "Load tearing", which splits loads in a manner analogous to
+     	 store tearing.
+
  (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued
      in the order given.  This means that for:
 

@@ -450,14 +489,14 @@ The usage requirements of data dependency barriers are a little subtle, and
 it's not always obvious that they're needed.  To illustrate, consider the
 following sequence of events:
 
-	CPU 1		CPU 2
-	===============	===============
+	CPU 1		      CPU 2
+	===============	      ===============
 	{ A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
 	B = 4;
 	<write barrier>
-	P = &B
-			Q = P;
-			D = *Q;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(P) = &B
+			      Q = ACCESS_ONCE(P);
+			      D = *Q;
 
 There's a clear data dependency here, and it would seem that by the end of the
 sequence, Q must be either &A or &B, and that:

@@ -477,15 +516,15 @@ Alpha).
 To deal with this, a data dependency barrier or better must be inserted
 between the address load and the data load:
 
-	CPU 1		CPU 2
-	===============	===============
+	CPU 1		      CPU 2
+	===============	      ===============
 	{ A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
 	B = 4;
 	<write barrier>
-	P = &B
-			Q = P;
-			<data dependency barrier>
-			D = *Q;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(P) = &B
+			      Q = ACCESS_ONCE(P);
+			      <data dependency barrier>
+			      D = *Q;
 
 This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the
 third possibility from arising.

@@ -504,21 +543,22 @@ Another example of where data dependency barriers might be required is where a
 number is read from memory and then used to calculate the index for an array
 access:
 
-	CPU 1		CPU 2
-	===============	===============
+	CPU 1		      CPU 2
+	===============	      ===============
 	{ M[0] == 1, M[1] == 2, M[3] = 3, P == 0, Q == 3 }
 	M[1] = 4;
 	<write barrier>
-	P = 1
-			Q = P;
-			<data dependency barrier>
-			D = M[Q];
+	ACCESS_ONCE(P) = 1
+			      Q = ACCESS_ONCE(P);
+			      <data dependency barrier>
+			      D = M[Q];
 
 
-The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system, for example.
-See rcu_dereference() in include/linux/rcupdate.h.  This permits the current
-target of an RCU'd pointer to be replaced with a new modified target, without
-the replacement target appearing to be incompletely initialised.
+The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system,
+for example.  See rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() in
+include/linux/rcupdate.h.  This permits the current target of an RCU'd
+pointer to be replaced with a new modified target, without the replacement
+target appearing to be incompletely initialised.
 
 See also the subsection on "Cache Coherency" for a more thorough example.
 

@@ -530,22 +570,23 @@ A control dependency requires a full read memory barrier, not simply a data
 dependency barrier to make it work correctly.  Consider the following bit of
 code:
 
-	q = &a;
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
 	if (p) {
 		<data dependency barrier>
-		q = &b;
+		q = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
 	}
 	x = *q;
 
 This will not have the desired effect because there is no actual data
-dependency, but rather a control dependency that the CPU may short-circuit by
-attempting to predict the outcome in advance.  In such a case what's actually
-required is:
+dependency, but rather a control dependency that the CPU may short-circuit
+by attempting to predict the outcome in advance, so that other CPUs see
+the load from b as having happened before the load from a.  In such a
+case what's actually required is:
 
-	q = &a;
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
 	if (p) {
 		<read barrier>
-		q = &b;
+		q = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
 	}
 	x = *q;
 

@@ -561,23 +602,23 @@ barrier, though a general barrier would also be viable.  Similarly a read
 barrier or a data dependency barrier should always be paired with at least an
 write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
 
-	CPU 1		CPU 2
-	===============	===============
-	a = 1;
+	CPU 1		      CPU 2
+	===============	      ===============
+	ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 1;
 	<write barrier>
-	b = 2;		x = b;
-			<read barrier>
-			y = a;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 2;   x = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
+			      <read barrier>
+			      y = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
 
 Or:
 
-	CPU 1		CPU 2
-	===============	===============================
+	CPU 1		      CPU 2
+	===============	      ===============================
 	a = 1;
 	<write barrier>
-	b = &a;		x = b;
-			<data dependency barrier>
-			y = *x;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = &a;  x = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
+			      <data dependency barrier>
+			      y = *x;
 
 Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
 the "weaker" type.

@@ -586,13 +627,13 @@ the "weaker" type.
 match the loads after the read barrier or the data dependency barrier, and vice
 versa:
 
-	CPU 1                           CPU 2
-	===============                 ===============
-	a = 1;           }----   --->{  v = c
-	b = 2;           }    \ /    {  w = d
-	<write barrier>        \        <read barrier>
-	c = 3;           }    / \    {  x = a;
-	d = 4;           }----   --->{  y = b;
+	CPU 1                               CPU 2
+	===================                 ===================
+	ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 1;  }----   --->{  v = ACCESS_ONCE(c);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 2;  }    \ /    {  w = ACCESS_ONCE(d);
+	<write barrier>            \        <read barrier>
+	ACCESS_ONCE(c) = 3;  }    / \    {  x = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(d) = 4;  }----   --->{  y = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
 
 
 EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES

@@ -1435,12 +1476,12 @@ three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
 
 	CPU 1				CPU 2
 	===============================	===============================
-	*A = a;				*E = e;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = a;		ACCESS_ONCE(*E) = e;
 	LOCK M				LOCK Q
-	*B = b;				*F = f;
-	*C = c;				*G = g;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*B) = b;		ACCESS_ONCE(*F) = f;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*C) = c;		ACCESS_ONCE(*G) = g;
 	UNLOCK M			UNLOCK Q
-	*D = d;				*H = h;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*D) = d;		ACCESS_ONCE(*H) = h;
 
 Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU 3 will see the accesses to *A
 through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks

@@ -1460,17 +1501,17 @@ However, if the following occurs:
 
 	CPU 1				CPU 2
 	===============================	===============================
-	*A = a;
-	LOCK M		[1]
-	*B = b;
-	*C = c;
-	UNLOCK M	[1]
-	*D = d;				*E = e;
-					LOCK M		[2]
-					*F = f;
-					*G = g;
-					UNLOCK M	[2]
-					*H = h;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = a;
+	LOCK M		     [1]
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*B) = b;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*C) = c;
+	UNLOCK M	     [1]
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*D) = d;		ACCESS_ONCE(*E) = e;
+					LOCK M		     [2]
+					ACCESS_ONCE(*F) = f;
+					ACCESS_ONCE(*G) = g;
+					UNLOCK M	     [2]
+					ACCESS_ONCE(*H) = h;
 
 CPU 3 might see:
 

@@ -2177,11 +2218,11 @@ A programmer might take it for granted that the CPU will perform memory
 operations in exactly the order specified, so that if the CPU is, for example,
 given the following piece of code to execute:
 
-	a = *A;
-	*B = b;
-	c = *C;
-	d = *D;
-	*E = e;
+	a = ACCESS_ONCE(*A);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*B) = b;
+	c = ACCESS_ONCE(*C);
+	d = ACCESS_ONCE(*D);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*E) = e;
 
 they would then expect that the CPU will complete the memory operation for each
 instruction before moving on to the next one, leading to a definite sequence of

@@ -2228,12 +2269,12 @@ However, it is guaranteed that a CPU will be self-consistent: it will see its
 _own_ accesses appear to be correctly ordered, without the need for a memory
 barrier.  For instance with the following code:
 
-	U = *A;
-	*A = V;
-	*A = W;
-	X = *A;
-	*A = Y;
-	Z = *A;
+	U = ACCESS_ONCE(*A);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = V;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = W;
+	X = ACCESS_ONCE(*A);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = Y;
+	Z = ACCESS_ONCE(*A);
 
 and assuming no intervention by an external influence, it can be assumed that
 the final result will appear to be:

@@ -2250,7 +2291,12 @@ accesses:
 
 in that order, but, without intervention, the sequence may have almost any
 combination of elements combined or discarded, provided the program's view of
-the world remains consistent.
+the world remains consistent.  Note that ACCESS_ONCE() is -not- optional
+in the above example, as there are architectures where a given CPU might
+interchange successive loads to the same location.  On such architectures,
+ACCESS_ONCE() does whatever is necessary to prevent this, for example, on
+Itanium the volatile casts used by ACCESS_ONCE() cause GCC to emit the
+special ld.acq and st.rel instructions that prevent such reordering.
 
 The compiler may also combine, discard or defer elements of the sequence before
 the CPU even sees them.

@@ -2264,13 +2310,13 @@ may be reduced to:
 
 	*A = W;
 
-since, without a write barrier, it can be assumed that the effect of the
-storage of V to *A is lost.  Similarly:
+since, without either a write barrier or an ACCESS_ONCE(), it can be
+assumed that the effect of the storage of V to *A is lost.  Similarly:
 
 	*A = Y;
 	Z = *A;
 
-may, without a memory barrier, be reduced to:
+may, without a memory barrier or an ACCESS_ONCE(), be reduced to:
 
 	*A = Y;
 	Z = Y;

index 1d067235b0bc..2d22da095a60 100644
@@ -1728,21 +1728,23 @@ explicit lock operations, described later).  These include:
 
 	xchg();
 	cmpxchg();
-	atomic_xchg();
-	atomic_cmpxchg();
-	atomic_inc_return();
-	atomic_dec_return();
-	atomic_add_return();
-	atomic_sub_return();
-	atomic_inc_and_test();
-	atomic_dec_and_test();
-	atomic_sub_and_test();
-	atomic_add_negative();
-	atomic_add_unless();	/* when succeeds (returns 1) */
+	atomic_xchg();			atomic_long_xchg();
+	atomic_cmpxchg();		atomic_long_cmpxchg();
+	atomic_inc_return();		atomic_long_inc_return();
+	atomic_dec_return();		atomic_long_dec_return();
+	atomic_add_return();		atomic_long_add_return();
+	atomic_sub_return();		atomic_long_sub_return();
+	atomic_inc_and_test();		atomic_long_inc_and_test();
+	atomic_dec_and_test();		atomic_long_dec_and_test();
+	atomic_sub_and_test();		atomic_long_sub_and_test();
+	atomic_add_negative();		atomic_long_add_negative();
 	test_and_set_bit();
 	test_and_clear_bit();
 	test_and_change_bit();
 
+	/* when succeeds (returns 1) */
+	atomic_add_unless();		atomic_long_add_unless();
+
 These are used for such things as implementing LOCK-class and UNLOCK-class
 operations and adjusting reference counters towards object destruction, and as
 such the implicit memory barrier effects are necessary.

index 2d22da095a60..deafa36aeea1 100644
@@ -571,11 +571,10 @@ dependency barrier to make it work correctly.  Consider the following bit of
 code:
 
 	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
-	if (p) {
-		<data dependency barrier>
-		q = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
+	if (q) {
+		<data dependency barrier>  /* BUG: No data dependency!!! */
+		p = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
 	}
-	x = *q;
 
 This will not have the desired effect because there is no actual data
 dependency, but rather a control dependency that the CPU may short-circuit

@@ -584,11 +583,176 @@ the load from b as having happened before the load from a.  In such a
 case what's actually required is:
 
 	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
-	if (p) {
+	if (q) {
 		<read barrier>
-		q = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
+		p = ACCESS_ONCE(b);
 	}
-	x = *q;
+
+However, stores are not speculated.  This means that ordering -is- provided
+in the following example:
+
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	if (ACCESS_ONCE(q)) {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+	}
+
+Please note that ACCESS_ONCE() is not optional!  Without the ACCESS_ONCE(),
+the compiler is within its rights to transform this example:
+
+	q = a;
+	if (q) {
+		b = p;  /* BUG: Compiler can reorder!!! */
+		do_something();
+	} else {
+		b = p;  /* BUG: Compiler can reorder!!! */
+		do_something_else();
+	}
+
+into this, which of course defeats the ordering:
+
+	b = p;
+	q = a;
+	if (q)
+		do_something();
+	else
+		do_something_else();
+
+Worse yet, if the compiler is able to prove (say) that the value of
+variable 'a' is always non-zero, it would be well within its rights
+to optimize the original example by eliminating the "if" statement
+as follows:
+
+	q = a;
+	b = p;  /* BUG: Compiler can reorder!!! */
+	do_something();
+
+The solution is again ACCESS_ONCE(), which preserves the ordering between
+the load from variable 'a' and the store to variable 'b':
+
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	if (q) {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+		do_something();
+	} else {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+		do_something_else();
+	}
+
+You could also use barrier() to prevent the compiler from moving
+the stores to variable 'b', but barrier() would not prevent the
+compiler from proving to itself that a==1 always, so ACCESS_ONCE()
+is also needed.
+
+It is important to note that control dependencies absolutely require a
+a conditional.  For example, the following "optimized" version of
+the above example breaks ordering:
+
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;  /* BUG: No ordering vs. load from a!!! */
+	if (q) {
+		/* ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; -- moved up, BUG!!! */
+		do_something();
+	} else {
+		/* ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; -- moved up, BUG!!! */
+		do_something_else();
+	}
+
+It is of course legal for the prior load to be part of the conditional,
+for example, as follows:
+
+	if (ACCESS_ONCE(a) > 0) {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = q / 2;
+		do_something();
+	} else {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = q / 3;
+		do_something_else();
+	}
+
+This will again ensure that the load from variable 'a' is ordered before the
+stores to variable 'b'.
+
+In addition, you need to be careful what you do with the local variable 'q',
+otherwise the compiler might be able to guess the value and again remove
+the needed conditional.  For example:
+
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	if (q % MAX) {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+		do_something();
+	} else {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+		do_something_else();
+	}
+
+If MAX is defined to be 1, then the compiler knows that (q % MAX) is
+equal to zero, in which case the compiler is within its rights to
+transform the above code into the following:
+
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+	do_something_else();
+
+This transformation loses the ordering between the load from variable 'a'
+and the store to variable 'b'.  If you are relying on this ordering, you
+should do something like the following:
+
+	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX <= 1); /* Order load from a with store to b. */
+	if (q % MAX) {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+		do_something();
+	} else {
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
+		do_something_else();
+	}
+
+Finally, control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity.  This is
+demonstrated by two related examples:
+
+	CPU 0                     CPU 1
+	=====================     =====================
+	r1 = ACCESS_ONCE(x);      r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(y);
+	if (r1 >= 0)              if (r2 >= 0)
+	  ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 1;       ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 1;
+
+	assert(!(r1 == 1 && r2 == 1));
+
+The above two-CPU example will never trigger the assert().  However,
+if control dependencies guaranteed transitivity (which they do not),
+then adding the following two CPUs would guarantee a related assertion:
+
+	CPU 2                     CPU 3
+	=====================     =====================
+	ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 2;       ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 2;
+
+	assert(!(r1 == 2 && r2 == 2 && x == 1 && y == 1)); /* FAILS!!! */
+
+But because control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity, the
+above assertion can fail after the combined four-CPU example completes.
+If you need the four-CPU example to provide ordering, you will need
+smp_mb() between the loads and stores in the CPU 0 and CPU 1 code fragments.
+
+In summary:
+
+  (*) Control dependencies can order prior loads against later stores.
+      However, they do -not- guarantee any other sort of ordering:
+      Not prior loads against later loads, nor prior stores against
+      later anything.  If you need these other forms of ordering,
+      use smb_rmb(), smp_wmb(), or, in the case of prior stores and
+      later loads, smp_mb().
+
+  (*) Control dependencies require at least one run-time conditional
+      between the prior load and the subsequent store.  If the compiler
+      is able to optimize the conditional away, it will have also
+      optimized away the ordering.  Careful use of ACCESS_ONCE() can
+      help to preserve the needed conditional.
+
+  (*) Control dependencies require that the compiler avoid reordering the
+      dependency into nonexistence.  Careful use of ACCESS_ONCE() or
+      barrier() can help to preserve your control dependency.
+
+  (*) Control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity.  If you
+      need transitivity, use smp_mb().
 
 
 SMP BARRIER PAIRING

@@ -1083,7 +1247,10 @@ compiler from moving the memory accesses either side of it to the other side:
 
 	barrier();
 
-This is a general barrier - lesser varieties of compiler barrier do not exist.
+This is a general barrier -- there are no read-read or write-write variants
+of barrier().  Howevever, ACCESS_ONCE() can be thought of as a weak form
+for barrier() that affects only the specific accesses flagged by the
+ACCESS_ONCE().
 
 The compiler barrier has no direct effect on the CPU, which may then reorder
 things however it wishes.

index deafa36aeea1..a0763db314ff 100644
@@ -231,37 +231,8 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
  (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that the compiler will do what you want with
      memory references that are not protected by ACCESS_ONCE().  Without
      ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler is within its rights to do all sorts
-     of "creative" transformations:
-
-     (-) Repeat the load, possibly getting a different value on the second
-         and subsequent loads.  This is especially prone to happen when
-	 register pressure is high.
-
-     (-) Merge adjacent loads and stores to the same location.  The most
-         familiar example is the transformation from:
-
-		while (a)
-			do_something();
-
-         to something like:
-
-		if (a)
-			for (;;)
-				do_something();
-
-         Using ACCESS_ONCE() as follows prevents this sort of optimization:
-
-		while (ACCESS_ONCE(a))
-			do_something();
-
-     (-) "Store tearing", where a single store in the source code is split
-         into smaller stores in the object code.  Note that gcc really
-	 will do this on some architectures when storing certain constants.
-	 It can be cheaper to do a series of immediate stores than to
-	 form the constant in a register and then to store that register.
-
-     (-) "Load tearing", which splits loads in a manner analogous to
-     	 store tearing.
+     of "creative" transformations, which are covered in the Compiler
+     Barrier section.
 
  (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued
      in the order given.  This means that for:

@@ -749,7 +720,8 @@ In summary:
 
   (*) Control dependencies require that the compiler avoid reordering the
       dependency into nonexistence.  Careful use of ACCESS_ONCE() or
-      barrier() can help to preserve your control dependency.
+      barrier() can help to preserve your control dependency.  Please
+      see the Compiler Barrier section for more information.
 
   (*) Control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity.  If you
       need transitivity, use smp_mb().

@@ -1252,8 +1224,264 @@ of barrier().  Howevever, ACCESS_ONCE() can be thought of as a weak form
 for barrier() that affects only the specific accesses flagged by the
 ACCESS_ONCE().
 
-The compiler barrier has no direct effect on the CPU, which may then reorder
-things however it wishes.
+The barrier() function has the following effects:
+
+ (*) Prevents the compiler from reordering accesses following the
+     barrier() to precede any accesses preceding the barrier().
+     One example use for this property is to ease communication between
+     interrupt-handler code and the code that was interrupted.
+
+ (*) Within a loop, forces the compiler to load the variables used
+     in that loop's conditional on each pass through that loop.
+
+The ACCESS_ONCE() function 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 merge successive loads from
+     the same variable.  Such merging can cause the compiler to "optimize"
+     the following code:
+
+	while (tmp = a)
+		do_something_with(tmp);
+
+     into the following code, which, although in some sense legitimate
+     for single-threaded code, is almost certainly not what the developer
+     intended:
+
+	if (tmp = a)
+		for (;;)
+			do_something_with(tmp);
+
+     Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from doing this to you:
+
+	while (tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a))
+		do_something_with(tmp);
+
+ (*) The compiler is within its rights to reload a variable, for example,
+     in cases where high register pressure prevents the compiler from
+     keeping all data of interest in registers.  The compiler might
+     therefore optimize the variable 'tmp' out of our previous example:
+
+	while (tmp = a)
+		do_something_with(tmp);
+
+     This could result in the following code, which is perfectly safe in
+     single-threaded code, but can be fatal in concurrent code:
+
+	while (a)
+		do_something_with(a);
+
+     For example, the optimized version of this code could result in
+     passing a zero to do_something_with() in the case where the variable
+     a was modified by some other CPU between the "while" statement and
+     the call to do_something_with().
+
+     Again, use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from doing this:
+
+	while (tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a))
+		do_something_with(tmp);
+
+     Note that if the compiler runs short of registers, it might save
+     tmp onto the stack.  The overhead of this saving and later restoring
+     is why compilers reload variables.  Doing so is perfectly safe for
+     single-threaded code, so you need to tell the compiler about cases
+     where it is not safe.
+
+ (*) The compiler is within its rights to omit a load entirely if it knows
+     what the value will be.  For example, if the compiler can prove that
+     the value of variable 'a' is always zero, it can optimize this code:
+
+	while (tmp = a)
+		do_something_with(tmp);
+
+     Into this:
+
+     	do { } while (0);
+
+     This transformation is a win for single-threaded code because it gets
+     rid of a load and a branch.  The problem is that the compiler will
+     carry out its proof assuming that the current CPU is the only one
+     updating variable 'a'.  If variable 'a' is shared, then the compiler's
+     proof will be erroneous.  Use ACCESS_ONCE() to tell the compiler
+     that it doesn't know as much as it thinks it does:
+
+	while (tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a))
+		do_something_with(tmp);
+
+     But please note that the compiler is also closely watching what you
+     do with the value after the ACCESS_ONCE().  For example, suppose you
+     do the following and MAX is a preprocessor macro with the value 1:
+
+	while ((tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a)) % MAX)
+		do_something_with(tmp);
+
+     Then the compiler knows that the result of the "%" operator applied
+     to MAX will always be zero, again allowing the compiler to optimize
+     the code into near-nonexistence.  (It will still load from the
+     variable 'a'.)
+
+ (*) Similarly, the compiler is within its rights to omit a store entirely
+     if it knows that the variable already has the value being stored.
+     Again, the compiler assumes that the current CPU is the only one
+     storing into the variable, which can cause the compiler to do the
+     wrong thing for shared variables.  For example, suppose you have
+     the following:
+
+	a = 0;
+	/* Code that does not store to variable a. */
+	a = 0;
+
+     The compiler sees that the value of variable 'a' is already zero, so
+     it might well omit the second store.  This would come as a fatal
+     surprise if some other CPU might have stored to variable 'a' in the
+     meantime.
+
+     Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from making this sort of
+     wrong guess:
+
+	ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 0;
+	/* Code that does not store to variable a. */
+	ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 0;
+
+ (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless
+     you tell it not to.  For example, consider the following interaction
+     between process-level code and an interrupt handler:
+
+	void process_level(void)
+	{
+		msg = get_message();
+		flag = true;
+	}
+
+	void interrupt_handler(void)
+	{
+		if (flag)
+			process_message(msg);
+	}
+
+     There is nothing to prevent the the compiler from transforming
+     process_level() to the following, in fact, this might well be a
+     win for single-threaded code:
+
+	void process_level(void)
+	{
+		flag = true;
+		msg = get_message();
+	}
+
+     If the interrupt occurs between these two statement, then
+     interrupt_handler() might be passed a garbled msg.  Use ACCESS_ONCE()
+     to prevent this as follows:
+
+	void process_level(void)
+	{
+		ACCESS_ONCE(msg) = get_message();
+		ACCESS_ONCE(flag) = true;
+	}
+
+	void interrupt_handler(void)
+	{
+		if (ACCESS_ONCE(flag))
+			process_message(ACCESS_ONCE(msg));
+	}
+
+     Note that the ACCESS_ONCE() wrappers in interrupt_handler()
+     are needed if this interrupt handler can itself be interrupted
+     by something that also accesses 'flag' and 'msg', for example,
+     a nested interrupt or an NMI.  Otherwise, ACCESS_ONCE() is not
+     needed in interrupt_handler() other than for documentation purposes.
+
+     This effect could also be achieved using barrier(), but ACCESS_ONCE()
+     is more selective:  With ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler need only forget
+     the contents of the indicated memory located, while with barrier()
+     the compiler must discard the value of all memory locations that
+     it has currented cached in any machine registers.
+
+ (*) The compiler is within its rights to invent stores to a variable,
+     as in the following example:
+
+	if (a)
+		b = a;
+	else
+		b = 42;
+
+     The compiler might save a branch by optimizing this as follows:
+
+	b = 42;
+	if (a)
+		b = a;
+
+     In single-threaded code, this is not only safe, but also saves
+     a branch.  Unfortunately, in concurrent code, this optimization
+     could cause some other CPU to see a spurious value of 42 -- even
+     if variable 'a' was never zero -- when loading variable 'b'.
+     Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent this as follows:
+
+	if (a)
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = a;
+	else
+		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 42;
+
+     The compiler can also invent loads.  These are usually less
+     damaging, but they can result in cache-line bouncing and thus in
+     poor performance and scalability.  Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent
+     invented loads.
+
+ (*) For aligned memory locations whose size allows them to be accessed
+     with a single memory-reference instruction, prevents "load tearing"
+     and "store tearing," in which a single large access is replaced by
+     multiple smaller accesses.  For example, given an architecture having
+     16-bit store instructions with 7-bit immediate fields, the compiler
+     might be tempted to use two 16-bit store-immediate instructions to
+     implement the following 32-bit store:
+
+	p = 0x00010002;
+
+     Please note that GCC really does use this sort of optimization,
+     which is not surprising given that it would likely take more
+     than two instructions to build the constant and then store it.
+     This optimization can therefore be a win in single-threaded code.
+     In fact, a recent bug (since fixed) caused GCC to incorrectly use
+     this optimization in a volatile store.  In the absence of such bugs,
+     use of ACCESS_ONCE() prevents store tearing in the following example:
+
+	ACCESS_ONCE(p) = 0x00010002;
+
+     Use of packed structures can also result in load and store tearing,
+     as in this example:
+
+	struct __attribute__((__packed__)) foo {
+		short a;
+		int b;
+		short c;
+	};
+	struct foo foo1, foo2;
+	...
+
+	foo2.a = foo1.a;
+	foo2.b = foo1.b;
+	foo2.c = foo1.c;
+
+     Because there are no ACCESS_ONCE() wrappers and no volatile markings,
+     the compiler would be well within its rights to implement these three
+     assignment statements as a pair of 32-bit loads followed by a pair
+     of 32-bit stores.  This would result in load tearing on 'foo1.b'
+     and store tearing on 'foo2.b'.  ACCESS_ONCE() again prevents tearing
+     in this example:
+
+	foo2.a = foo1.a;
+	ACCESS_ONCE(foo2.b) = ACCESS_ONCE(foo1.b);
+	foo2.c = foo1.c;
+
+All that aside, it is never necessary to use ACCESS_ONCE() on a variable
+that has been marked volatile.  For example, because 'jiffies' is marked
+volatile, it is never necessary to say ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies).  The reason
+for this is that ACCESS_ONCE() is implemented as a volatile cast, which
+has no effect when its argument is already marked volatile.
+
+Please note that these compiler barriers have no direct effect on the CPU,
+which may then reorder things however it wishes.
 
 
 CPU MEMORY BARRIERS

index a0763db314ff..efb791d33e5a 100644
@@ -1626,7 +1626,10 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
      operation has completed.
 
      Memory operations issued before the LOCK may be completed after the LOCK
-     operation has completed.
+     operation has completed.  An smp_mb__before_spinlock(), combined
+     with a following LOCK, acts as an smp_wmb().  Note the "w",
+     this is smp_wmb(), not smp_mb().  The smp_mb__before_spinlock()
+     primitive is free on many architectures.
 
  (2) UNLOCK operation implication:
 

@@ -1646,9 +1649,6 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
      All LOCK operations issued before an UNLOCK operation will be completed
      before the UNLOCK operation.
 
-     All UNLOCK operations issued before a LOCK operation will be completed
-     before the LOCK operation.
-
  (5) Failed conditional LOCK implication:
 
      Certain variants of the LOCK operation may fail, either due to being

@@ -1656,9 +1656,6 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
      signal whilst asleep waiting for the lock to become available.  Failed
      locks do not imply any sort of barrier.
 
-Therefore, from (1), (2) and (4) an UNLOCK followed by an unconditional LOCK is
-equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not.
-
 [!] Note: one of the consequences of LOCKs and UNLOCKs being only one-way
     barriers is that the effects of instructions outside of a critical section
     may seep into the inside of the critical section.

@@ -1677,6 +1674,40 @@ may occur as:
 
 	LOCK, STORE *B, STORE *A, UNLOCK
 
+An UNLOCK followed by a LOCK may -not- be assumed to be a full memory
+barrier because it is possible for a preceding UNLOCK to pass a later LOCK
+from the viewpoint of the CPU, but not from the viewpoint of the compiler.
+Note that deadlocks cannot be introduced by this interchange because if
+such a deadlock threatened, the UNLOCK would simply complete.  If it is
+necessary for an UNLOCK-LOCK pair to produce a full barrier, the LOCK
+can be followed by an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() invocation.  This will
+produce a full barrier if either (a) the UNLOCK and the LOCK are executed
+by the same CPU or task, or (b) the UNLOCK and LOCK act on the same
+lock variable.  The smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() primitive is free on
+many architectures.  Without smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), the UNLOCK
+and LOCK can cross:
+
+	*A = a;
+	UNLOCK
+	LOCK
+	*B = b;
+
+may occur as:
+
+	LOCK, STORE *B, STORE *A, UNLOCK
+
+With smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), they cannot, so that:
+
+	*A = a;
+	UNLOCK
+	LOCK
+	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
+	*B = b;
+
+will always occur as:
+
+	STORE *A, UNLOCK, LOCK, STORE *B
+
 Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled
 systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve
 anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined

@@ -1903,6 +1934,7 @@ However, if the following occurs:
 	UNLOCK M	     [1]
 	ACCESS_ONCE(*D) = d;		ACCESS_ONCE(*E) = e;
 					LOCK M		     [2]
+					smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
 					ACCESS_ONCE(*F) = f;
 					ACCESS_ONCE(*G) = g;
 					UNLOCK M	     [2]

@@ -1920,6 +1952,11 @@ But assuming CPU 1 gets the lock first, CPU 3 won't see any of:
 	*F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [2]
 	*A, *B, *C, *E, *F or *G following UNLOCK M [2]
 
+Note that the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is critically important
+here: Without it CPU 3 might see some of the above orderings.
+Without smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), the accesses are not guaranteed
+to be seen in order unless CPU 3 holds lock M.
+
 
 LOCKS VS I/O ACCESSES
 ---------------------