rcu/segcblist: Add additional comments to explain smp_mb()

One counter-intuitive property of RCU is the fact that full memory
barriers are needed both before and after updates to the full
(non-segmented) length.  This patch therefore helps to assist the
reader's intuition by adding appropriate comments.

[ paulmck:  Wordsmithing. ]
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c

@@ -94,17 +94,77 @@ static void rcu_segcblist_set_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
  * field to disagree with the actual number of callbacks on the structure.
  * This increase is fully ordered with respect to the callers accesses
  * both before and after.
+ *
+ * So why on earth is a memory barrier required both before and after
+ * the update to the ->len field???
+ *
+ * The reason is that rcu_barrier() locklessly samples each CPU's ->len
+ * field, and if a given CPU's field is zero, avoids IPIing that CPU.
+ * This can of course race with both queuing and invoking of callbacks.
+ * Failing to correctly handle either of these races could result in
+ * rcu_barrier() failing to IPI a CPU that actually had callbacks queued
+ * which rcu_barrier() was obligated to wait on.  And if rcu_barrier()
+ * failed to wait on such a callback, unloading certain kernel modules
+ * would result in calls to functions whose code was no longer present in
+ * the kernel, for but one example.
+ *
+ * Therefore, ->len transitions from 1->0 and 0->1 have to be carefully
+ * ordered with respect with both list modifications and the rcu_barrier().
+ *
+ * The queuing case is CASE 1 and the invoking case is CASE 2.
+ *
+ * CASE 1: Suppose that CPU 0 has no callbacks queued, but invokes
+ * call_rcu() just as CPU 1 invokes rcu_barrier().  CPU 0's ->len field
+ * will transition from 0->1, which is one of the transitions that must
+ * be handled carefully.  Without the full memory barriers after the ->len
+ * update and at the beginning of rcu_barrier(), the following could happen:
+ *
+ * CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ * call_rcu().
+ *					rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0.
+ * set ->len = 1.
+ *					rcu_barrier() does nothing.
+ *					module is unloaded.
+ * callback invokes unloaded function!
+ *
+ * With the full barriers, any case where rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0 will
+ * have unambiguously preceded the return from the racing call_rcu(), which
+ * means that this call_rcu() invocation is OK to not wait on.  After all,
+ * you are supposed to make sure that any problematic call_rcu() invocations
+ * happen before the rcu_barrier().
+ *
+ *
+ * CASE 2: Suppose that CPU 0 is invoking its last callback just as
+ * CPU 1 invokes rcu_barrier().  CPU 0's ->len field will transition from
+ * 1->0, which is one of the transitions that must be handled carefully.
+ * Without the full memory barriers before the ->len update and at the
+ * end of rcu_barrier(), the following could happen:
+ *
+ * CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ * start invoking last callback
+ * set ->len = 0 (reordered)
+ *					rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0
+ *					rcu_barrier() does nothing.
+ *					module is unloaded
+ * callback executing after unloaded!
+ *
+ * With the full barriers, any case where rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0
+ * will be fully ordered after the completion of the callback function,
+ * so that the module unloading operation is completely safe.
+ *
  */
 void rcu_segcblist_add_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
-	smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb__before_atomic(); // Read header comment above.
 	atomic_long_add(v, &rsclp->len);
-	smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb__after_atomic();  // Read header comment above.
 #else
-	smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb(); // Read header comment above.
 	WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->len, rsclp->len + v);
-	smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb(); // Read header comment above.
 #endif
 }