diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f855031
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1913 @@
+			 ============================
+			 LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
+			 ============================
+
+By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
+
+Contents:
+
+ (*) Abstract memory access model.
+
+     - Device operations.
+     - Guarantees.
+
+ (*) What are memory barriers?
+
+     - Varieties of memory barrier.
+     - What may not be assumed about memory barriers?
+     - Data dependency barriers.
+     - Control dependencies.
+     - SMP barrier pairing.
+     - Examples of memory barrier sequences.
+
+ (*) Explicit kernel barriers.
+
+     - Compiler barrier.
+     - The CPU memory barriers.
+     - MMIO write barrier.
+
+ (*) Implicit kernel memory barriers.
+
+     - Locking functions.
+     - Interrupt disabling functions.
+     - Miscellaneous functions.
+
+ (*) Inter-CPU locking barrier effects.
+
+     - Locks vs memory accesses.
+     - Locks vs I/O accesses.
+
+ (*) Where are memory barriers needed?
+
+     - Interprocessor interaction.
+     - Atomic operations.
+     - Accessing devices.
+     - Interrupts.
+
+ (*) Kernel I/O barrier effects.
+
+ (*) Assumed minimum execution ordering model.
+
+ (*) The effects of the cpu cache.
+
+     - Cache coherency.
+     - Cache coherency vs DMA.
+     - Cache coherency vs MMIO.
+
+ (*) The things CPUs get up to.
+
+     - And then there's the Alpha.
+
+ (*) References.
+
+
+============================
+ABSTRACT MEMORY ACCESS MODEL
+============================
+
+Consider the following abstract model of the system:
+
+		            :                :
+		            :                :
+		            :                :
+		+-------+   :   +--------+   :   +-------+
+		|       |   :   |        |   :   |       |
+		|       |   :   |        |   :   |       |
+		| CPU 1 |<----->| Memory |<----->| CPU 2 |
+		|       |   :   |        |   :   |       |
+		|       |   :   |        |   :   |       |
+		+-------+   :   +--------+   :   +-------+
+		    ^       :       ^        :       ^
+		    |       :       |        :       |
+		    |       :       |        :       |
+		    |       :       v        :       |
+		    |       :   +--------+   :       |
+		    |       :   |        |   :       |
+		    |       :   |        |   :       |
+		    +---------->| Device |<----------+
+		            :   |        |   :
+		            :   |        |   :
+		            :   +--------+   :
+		            :                :
+
+Each CPU executes a program that generates memory access operations.  In the
+abstract CPU, memory operation ordering is very relaxed, and a CPU may actually
+perform the memory operations in any order it likes, provided program causality
+appears to be maintained.  Similarly, the compiler may also arrange the
+instructions it emits in any order it likes, provided it doesn't affect the
+apparent operation of the program.
+
+So in the above diagram, the effects of the memory operations performed by a
+CPU are perceived by the rest of the system as the operations cross the
+interface between the CPU and rest of the system (the dotted lines).
+
+
+For example, consider the following sequence of events:
+
+	CPU 1		CPU 2
+	===============	===============
+	{ A == 1; B == 2 }
+	A = 3;		x = A;
+	B = 4;		y = B;
+
+The set of accesses as seen by the memory system in the middle can be arranged
+in 24 different combinations:
+
+	STORE A=3,	STORE B=4,	x=LOAD A->3,	y=LOAD B->4
+	STORE A=3,	STORE B=4,	y=LOAD B->4,	x=LOAD A->3
+	STORE A=3,	x=LOAD A->3,	STORE B=4,	y=LOAD B->4
+	STORE A=3,	x=LOAD A->3,	y=LOAD B->2,	STORE B=4
+	STORE A=3,	y=LOAD B->2,	STORE B=4,	x=LOAD A->3
+	STORE A=3,	y=LOAD B->2,	x=LOAD A->3,	STORE B=4
+	STORE B=4,	STORE A=3,	x=LOAD A->3,	y=LOAD B->4
+	STORE B=4, ...
+	...
+
+and can thus result in four different combinations of values:
+
+	x == 1, y == 2
+	x == 1, y == 4
+	x == 3, y == 2
+	x == 3, y == 4
+
+
+Furthermore, the stores committed by a CPU to the memory system may not be
+perceived by the loads made by another CPU in the same order as the stores were
+committed.
+
+
+As a further example, consider this sequence of events:
+
+	CPU 1		CPU 2
+	===============	===============
+	{ A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
+	B = 4;		Q = P;
+	P = &B		D = *Q;
+
+There is an obvious data dependency here, as the value loaded into D depends on
+the address retrieved from P by CPU 2.  At the end of the sequence, any of the
+following results are possible:
+
+	(Q == &A) and (D == 1)
+	(Q == &B) and (D == 2)
+	(Q == &B) and (D == 4)
+
+Note that CPU 2 will never try and load C into D because the CPU will load P
+into Q before issuing the load of *Q.
+
+
+DEVICE OPERATIONS
+-----------------
+
+Some devices present their control interfaces as collections of memory
+locations, but the order in which the control registers are accessed is very
+important.  For instance, imagine an ethernet card with a set of internal
+registers that are accessed through an address port register (A) and a data
+port register (D).  To read internal register 5, the following code might then
+be used:
+
+	*A = 5;
+	x = *D;
+
+but this might show up as either of the following two sequences:
+
+	STORE *A = 5, x = LOAD *D
+	x = LOAD *D, STORE *A = 5
+
+the second of which will almost certainly result in a malfunction, since it set
+the address _after_ attempting to read the register.
+
+
+GUARANTEES
+----------
+
+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;
+
+     the CPU will issue the following memory operations:
+
+	Q = LOAD P, D = LOAD *Q
+
+     and always in that order.
+
+ (*) Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will appear to be
+     ordered within that CPU.  This means that for:
+
+	a = *X; *X = b;
+
+     the CPU will only issue the following sequence of memory operations:
+
+	a = LOAD *X, STORE *X = b
+
+     And for:
+
+	*X = c; d = *X;
+
+     the CPU will only issue:
+
+	STORE *X = c, d = LOAD *X
+
+     (Loads and stores overlap if they are targetted at overlapping pieces of
+     memory).
+
+And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
+
+ (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued
+     in the order given.  This means that for:
+
+	X = *A; Y = *B; *D = Z;
+
+     we may get any of the following sequences:
+
+	X = LOAD *A,  Y = LOAD *B,  STORE *D = Z
+	X = LOAD *A,  STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B
+	Y = LOAD *B,  X = LOAD *A,  STORE *D = Z
+	Y = LOAD *B,  STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A
+	STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A,  Y = LOAD *B
+	STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B,  X = LOAD *A
+
+ (*) It _must_ be assumed that overlapping memory accesses may be merged or
+     discarded.  This means that for:
+
+	X = *A; Y = *(A + 4);
+
+     we may get any one of the following sequences:
+
+	X = LOAD *A; Y = LOAD *(A + 4);
+	Y = LOAD *(A + 4); X = LOAD *A;
+	{X, Y} = LOAD {*A, *(A + 4) };
+
+     And for:
+
+	*A = X; Y = *A;
+
+     we may get either of:
+
+	STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A;
+	STORE *A = Y;
+
+
+=========================
+WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS?
+=========================
+
+As can be seen above, independent memory operations are effectively performed
+in random order, but this can be a problem for CPU-CPU interaction and for I/O.
+What is required is some way of intervening to instruct the compiler and the
+CPU to restrict the order.
+
+Memory barriers are such interventions.  They impose a perceived partial
+ordering between the memory operations specified on either side of the barrier.
+They request that the sequence of memory events generated appears to other
+parts of the system as if the barrier is effective on that CPU.
+
+
+VARIETIES OF MEMORY BARRIER
+---------------------------
+
+Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
+
+ (1) Write (or store) memory barriers.
+
+     A write memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the STORE operations
+     specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all the STORE
+     operations specified after the barrier with respect to the other
+     components of the system.
+
+     A write barrier is a partial ordering on stores only; it is not required
+     to have any effect on loads.
+
+     A CPU can be viewed as as commiting a sequence of store operations to the
+     memory system as time progresses.  All stores before a write barrier will
+     occur in the sequence _before_ all the stores after the write barrier.
+
+     [!] Note that write barriers should normally be paired with read or data
+     dependency barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
+
+
+ (2) Data dependency barriers.
+
+     A data dependency barrier is a weaker form of read barrier.  In the case
+     where two loads are performed such that the second depends on the result
+     of the first (eg: the first load retrieves the address to which the second
+     load will be directed), a data dependency barrier would be required to
+     make sure that the target of the second load is updated before the address
+     obtained by the first load is accessed.
+
+     A data dependency barrier is a partial ordering on interdependent loads
+     only; it is not required to have any effect on stores, independent loads
+     or overlapping loads.
+
+     As mentioned in (1), the other CPUs in the system can be viewed as
+     committing sequences of stores to the memory system that the CPU being
+     considered can then perceive.  A data dependency barrier issued by the CPU
+     under consideration guarantees that for any load preceding it, if that
+     load touches one of a sequence of stores from another CPU, then by the
+     time the barrier completes, the effects of all the stores prior to that
+     touched by the load will be perceptible to any loads issued after the data
+     dependency barrier.
+
+     See the "Examples of memory barrier sequences" subsection for diagrams
+     showing the ordering constraints.
+
+     [!] Note that the first load really has to have a _data_ dependency and
+     not a control dependency.  If the address for the second load is dependent
+     on the first load, but the dependency is through a conditional rather than
+     actually loading the address itself, then it's a _control_ dependency and
+     a full read barrier or better is required.  See the "Control dependencies"
+     subsection for more information.
+
+     [!] Note that data dependency barriers should normally be paired with
+     write barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
+
+
+ (3) Read (or load) memory barriers.
+
+     A read barrier is a data dependency barrier plus a guarantee that all the
+     LOAD operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before
+     all the LOAD operations specified after the barrier with respect to the
+     other components of the system.
+
+     A read barrier is a partial ordering on loads only; it is not required to
+     have any effect on stores.
+
+     Read memory barriers imply data dependency barriers, and so can substitute
+     for them.
+
+     [!] Note that read barriers should normally be paired with write barriers;
+     see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
+
+
+ (4) General memory barriers.
+
+     A general memory barrier is a combination of both a read memory barrier
+     and a write memory barrier.  It is a partial ordering over both loads and
+     stores.
+
+     General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so
+     can substitute for either.
+
+
+And a couple of implicit varieties:
+
+ (5) LOCK operations.
+
+     This acts as a one-way permeable barrier.  It guarantees that all memory
+     operations after the LOCK operation will appear to happen after the LOCK
+     operation with respect to the other components of the system.
+
+     Memory operations that occur before a LOCK operation may appear to happen
+     after it completes.
+
+     A LOCK operation should almost always be paired with an UNLOCK operation.
+
+
+ (6) UNLOCK operations.
+
+     This also acts as a one-way permeable barrier.  It guarantees that all
+     memory operations before the UNLOCK operation will appear to happen before
+     the UNLOCK operation with respect to the other components of the system.
+
+     Memory operations that occur after an UNLOCK operation may appear to
+     happen before it completes.
+
+     LOCK and UNLOCK operations are guaranteed to appear with respect to each
+     other strictly in the order specified.
+
+     The use of LOCK and UNLOCK operations generally precludes the need for
+     other sorts of memory barrier (but note the exceptions mentioned in the
+     subsection "MMIO write barrier").
+
+
+Memory barriers are only required where there's a possibility of interaction
+between two CPUs or between a CPU and a device.  If it can be guaranteed that
+there won't be any such interaction in any particular piece of code, then
+memory barriers are unnecessary in that piece of code.
+
+
+Note that these are the _minimum_ guarantees.  Different architectures may give
+more substantial guarantees, but they may _not_ be relied upon outside of arch
+specific code.
+
+
+WHAT MAY NOT BE ASSUMED ABOUT MEMORY BARRIERS?
+----------------------------------------------
+
+There are certain things that the Linux kernel memory barriers do not guarantee:
+
+ (*) There is no guarantee that any of the memory accesses specified before a
+     memory barrier will be _complete_ by the completion of a memory barrier
+     instruction; the barrier can be considered to draw a line in that CPU's
+     access queue that accesses of the appropriate type may not cross.
+
+ (*) There is no guarantee that issuing a memory barrier on one CPU will have
+     any direct effect on another CPU or any other hardware in the system.  The
+     indirect effect will be the order in which the second CPU sees the effects
+     of the first CPU's accesses occur, but see the next point:
+
+ (*) There is no guarantee that the a CPU will see the correct order of effects
+     from a second CPU's accesses, even _if_ the second CPU uses a memory
+     barrier, unless the first CPU _also_ uses a matching memory barrier (see
+     the subsection on "SMP Barrier Pairing").
+
+ (*) There is no guarantee that some intervening piece of off-the-CPU
+     hardware[*] will not reorder the memory accesses.  CPU cache coherency
+     mechanisms should propagate the indirect effects of a memory barrier
+     between CPUs, but might not do so in order.
+
+	[*] For information on bus mastering DMA and coherency please read:
+
+	    Documentation/pci.txt
+	    Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt
+	    Documentation/DMA-API.txt
+
+
+DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS
+------------------------
+
+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
+	===============	===============
+	{ A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
+	B = 4;
+	<write barrier>
+	P = &B
+			Q = 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:
+
+	(Q == &A) implies (D == 1)
+	(Q == &B) implies (D == 4)
+
+But! CPU 2's perception of P may be updated _before_ its perception of B, thus
+leading to the following situation:
+
+	(Q == &B) and (D == 2) ????
+
+Whilst this may seem like a failure of coherency or causality maintenance, it
+isn't, and this behaviour can be observed on certain real CPUs (such as the DEC
+Alpha).
+
+To deal with this, a data dependency barrier must be inserted between the
+address load and the data load:
+
+	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;
+
+This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the
+third possibility from arising.
+
+[!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on
+machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes
+even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache
+lines.  The pointer P might be stored in an odd-numbered cache line, and the
+variable B might be stored in an even-numbered cache line.  Then, if the
+even-numbered bank of the reading CPU's cache is extremely busy while the
+odd-numbered bank is idle, one can see the new value of the pointer P (&B),
+but the old value of the variable B (1).
+
+
+Another example of where data dependency barriers might by required is where a
+number is read from memory and then used to calculate the index for an array
+access:
+
+	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];
+
+
+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.
+
+See also the subsection on "Cache Coherency" for a more thorough example.
+
+
+CONTROL DEPENDENCIES
+--------------------
+
+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;
+	if (p)
+		q = &b;
+	<data dependency barrier>
+	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:
+
+	q = &a;
+	if (p)
+		q = &b;
+	<read barrier>
+	x = *q;
+
+
+SMP BARRIER PAIRING
+-------------------
+
+When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
+always be paired.  A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
+
+A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier or read
+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;
+	<write barrier>
+	b = 2;		x = a;
+			<read barrier>
+			y = b;
+
+Or:
+
+	CPU 1		CPU 2
+	===============	===============================
+	a = 1;
+	<write barrier>
+	b = &a;		x = b;
+			<data dependency barrier>
+			y = *x;
+
+Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
+the "weaker" type.
+
+
+EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
+------------------------------------
+
+Firstly, write barriers act as a partial orderings on store operations.
+Consider the following sequence of events:
+
+	CPU 1
+	=======================
+	STORE A = 1
+	STORE B = 2
+	STORE C = 3
+	<write barrier>
+	STORE D = 4
+	STORE E = 5
+
+This sequence of events is committed to the memory coherence system in an order
+that the rest of the system might perceive as the unordered set of { STORE A,
+STORE B, STORE C } all occuring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
+}:
+
+	+-------+       :      :
+	|       |       +------+
+	|       |------>| C=3  |     }     /\
+	|       |  :    +------+     }-----  \  -----> Events perceptible
+	|       |  :    | A=1  |     }        \/       to rest of system
+	|       |  :    +------+     }
+	| CPU 1 |  :    | B=2  |     }
+	|       |       +------+     }
+	|       |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww }   <--- At this point the write barrier
+	|       |       +------+     }        requires all stores prior to the
+	|       |  :    | E=5  |     }        barrier to be committed before
+	|       |  :    +------+     }        further stores may be take place.
+	|       |------>| D=4  |     }
+	|       |       +------+
+	+-------+       :      :
+	                   |
+	                   | Sequence in which stores committed to memory system
+	                   | by CPU 1
+	                   V
+
+
+Secondly, data dependency barriers act as a partial orderings on data-dependent
+loads.  Consider the following sequence of events:
+
+	CPU 1			CPU 2
+	=======================	=======================
+	STORE A = 1
+	STORE B = 2
+	<write barrier>
+	STORE C = &B		LOAD X
+	STORE D = 4		LOAD C (gets &B)
+				LOAD *C (reads B)
+
+Without intervention, CPU 2 may perceive the events on CPU 1 in some
+effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
+
+	+-------+       :      :                :       :
+	|       |       +------+                +-------+  | Sequence of update
+	|       |------>| B=2  |-----       --->| Y->8  |  | of perception on
+	|       |  :    +------+     \          +-------+  | CPU 2
+	| CPU 1 |  :    | A=1  |      \     --->| C->&Y |  V
+	|       |       +------+       |        +-------+
+	|       |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww   |        :       :
+	|       |       +------+       |        :       :
+	|       |  :    | C=&B |---    |        :       :       +-------+
+	|       |  :    +------+   \   |        +-------+       |       |
+	|       |------>| D=4  |    ----------->| C->&B |------>|       |
+	|       |       +------+       |        +-------+       |       |
+	+-------+       :      :       |        :       :       |       |
+	                               |        :       :       |       |
+	                               |        :       :       | CPU 2 |
+	                               |        +-------+       |       |
+	    Apparently incorrect --->  |        | B->7  |------>|       |
+	    perception of B (!)        |        +-------+       |       |
+	                               |        :       :       |       |
+	                               |        +-------+       |       |
+	    The load of X holds --->    \       | X->9  |------>|       |
+	    up the maintenance           \      +-------+       |       |
+	    of coherence of B             ----->| B->2  |       +-------+
+	                                        +-------+
+	                                        :       :
+
+
+In the above example, CPU 2 perceives that B is 7, despite the load of *C
+(which would be B) coming after the the LOAD of C.
+
+If, however, a data dependency barrier were to be placed between the load of C
+and the load of *C (ie: B) on CPU 2, then the following will occur:
+
+	+-------+       :      :                :       :
+	|       |       +------+                +-------+
+	|       |------>| B=2  |-----       --->| Y->8  |
+	|       |  :    +------+     \          +-------+
+	| CPU 1 |  :    | A=1  |      \     --->| C->&Y |
+	|       |       +------+       |        +-------+
+	|       |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww   |        :       :
+	|       |       +------+       |        :       :
+	|       |  :    | C=&B |---    |        :       :       +-------+
+	|       |  :    +------+   \   |        +-------+       |       |
+	|       |------>| D=4  |    ----------->| C->&B |------>|       |
+	|       |       +------+       |        +-------+       |       |
+	+-------+       :      :       |        :       :       |       |
+	                               |        :       :       |       |
+	                               |        :       :       | CPU 2 |
+	                               |        +-------+       |       |
+	                                \       | X->9  |------>|       |
+	                                 \      +-------+       |       |
+	                                  ----->| B->2  |       |       |
+	                                        +-------+       |       |
+	     Makes sure all effects --->    ddddddddddddddddd   |       |
+	     prior to the store of C            +-------+       |       |
+	     are perceptible to                 | B->2  |------>|       |
+	     successive loads                   +-------+       |       |
+	                                        :       :       +-------+
+
+
+And thirdly, a read barrier acts as a partial order on loads.  Consider the
+following sequence of events:
+
+	CPU 1			CPU 2
+	=======================	=======================
+	STORE A=1
+	STORE B=2
+	STORE C=3
+	<write barrier>
+	STORE D=4
+	STORE E=5
+				LOAD A
+				LOAD B
+				LOAD C
+				LOAD D
+				LOAD E
+
+Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in
+some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
+
+	+-------+       :      :
+	|       |       +------+
+	|       |------>| C=3  | }
+	|       |  :    +------+ }
+	|       |  :    | A=1  | }
+	|       |  :    +------+ }
+	| CPU 1 |  :    | B=2  | }---
+	|       |       +------+ }   \
+	|       |   wwwwwwwwwwwww}    \
+	|       |       +------+ }     \          :       :       +-------+
+	|       |  :    | E=5  | }      \         +-------+       |       |
+	|       |  :    +------+ }       \      { | C->3  |------>|       |
+	|       |------>| D=4  | }        \     { +-------+    :  |       |
+	|       |       +------+           \    { | E->5  |    :  |       |
+	+-------+       :      :            \   { +-------+    :  |       |
+	                           Transfer  -->{ | A->1  |    :  | CPU 2 |
+	                          from CPU 1    { +-------+    :  |       |
+	                           to CPU 2     { | D->4  |    :  |       |
+	                                        { +-------+    :  |       |
+	                                        { | B->2  |------>|       |
+	                                          +-------+       |       |
+	                                          :       :       +-------+
+
+
+If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of C and the
+load of D on CPU 2, then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be
+perceived correctly by CPU 2.
+
+	+-------+       :      :
+	|       |       +------+
+	|       |------>| C=3  | }
+	|       |  :    +------+ }
+	|       |  :    | A=1  | }---
+	|       |  :    +------+ }   \
+	| CPU 1 |  :    | B=2  | }    \
+	|       |       +------+       \
+	|       |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww    \
+	|       |       +------+         \        :       :       +-------+
+	|       |  :    | E=5  | }        \       +-------+       |       |
+	|       |  :    +------+ }---      \    { | C->3  |------>|       |
+	|       |------>| D=4  | }   \      \   { +-------+    :  |       |
+	|       |       +------+      \      -->{ | B->2  |    :  |       |
+	+-------+       :      :       \        { +-------+    :  |       |
+	                                \       { | A->1  |    :  | CPU 2 |
+	                                 \        +-------+       |       |
+	   At this point the read ---->   \   rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr   |       |
+	   barrier causes all effects      \      +-------+       |       |
+	   prior to the storage of C        \   { | E->5  |    :  |       |
+	   to be perceptible to CPU 2        -->{ +-------+    :  |       |
+	                                        { | D->4  |------>|       |
+	                                          +-------+       |       |
+	                                          :       :       +-------+
+
+
+========================
+EXPLICIT KERNEL BARRIERS
+========================
+
+The Linux kernel has a variety of different barriers that act at different
+levels:
+
+  (*) Compiler barrier.
+
+  (*) CPU memory barriers.
+
+  (*) MMIO write barrier.
+
+
+COMPILER BARRIER
+----------------
+
+The Linux kernel has an explicit compiler barrier function that prevents the
+compiler from moving the memory accesses either side of it to the other side:
+
+	barrier();
+
+This a general barrier - lesser varieties of compiler barrier do not exist.
+
+The compiler barrier has no direct effect on the CPU, which may then reorder
+things however it wishes.
+
+
+CPU MEMORY BARRIERS
+-------------------
+
+The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers:
+
+	TYPE		MANDATORY		SMP CONDITIONAL
+	===============	=======================	===========================
+	GENERAL		mb()			smp_mb()
+	WRITE		wmb()			smp_wmb()
+	READ		rmb()			smp_rmb()
+	DATA DEPENDENCY	read_barrier_depends()	smp_read_barrier_depends()
+
+
+All CPU memory barriers unconditionally imply compiler barriers.
+
+SMP memory barriers are reduced to compiler barriers on uniprocessor compiled
+systems because it is assumed that a CPU will be appear to be self-consistent,
+and will order overlapping accesses correctly with respect to itself.
+
+[!] Note that SMP memory barriers _must_ be used to control the ordering of
+references to shared memory on SMP systems, though the use of locking instead
+is sufficient.
+
+Mandatory barriers should not be used to control SMP effects, since mandatory
+barriers unnecessarily impose overhead on UP systems. They may, however, be
+used to control MMIO effects on accesses through relaxed memory I/O windows.
+These are required even on non-SMP systems as they affect the order in which
+memory operations appear to a device by prohibiting both the compiler and the
+CPU from reordering them.
+
+
+There are some more advanced barrier functions:
+
+ (*) set_mb(var, value)
+ (*) set_wmb(var, value)
+
+     These assign the value to the variable and then insert at least a write
+     barrier after it, depending on the function.  They aren't guaranteed to
+     insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation.
+
+
+ (*) smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
+ (*) smp_mb__after_atomic_dec();
+ (*) smp_mb__before_atomic_inc();
+ (*) smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
+
+     These are for use with atomic add, subtract, increment and decrement
+     functions, especially when used for reference counting.  These functions
+     do not imply memory barriers.
+
+     As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead
+     and then decrements the object's reference count:
+
+	obj->dead = 1;
+	smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
+	atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
+
+     This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set
+     *before* the reference counter is decremented.
+
+     See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information.  See the "Atomic
+     operations" subsection for information on where to use these.
+
+
+ (*) smp_mb__before_clear_bit(void);
+ (*) smp_mb__after_clear_bit(void);
+
+     These are for use similar to the atomic inc/dec barriers.  These are
+     typically used for bitwise unlocking operations, so care must be taken as
+     there are no implicit memory barriers here either.
+
+     Consider implementing an unlock operation of some nature by clearing a
+     locking bit.  The clear_bit() would then need to be barriered like this:
+
+	smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
+	clear_bit( ... );
+
+     This prevents memory operations before the clear leaking to after it.  See
+     the subsection on "Locking Functions" with reference to UNLOCK operation
+     implications.
+
+     See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information.  See the "Atomic
+     operations" subsection for information on where to use these.
+
+
+MMIO WRITE BARRIER
+------------------
+
+The Linux kernel also has a special barrier for use with memory-mapped I/O
+writes:
+
+	mmiowb();
+
+This is a variation on the mandatory write barrier that causes writes to weakly
+ordered I/O regions to be partially ordered.  Its effects may go beyond the
+CPU->Hardware interface and actually affect the hardware at some level.
+
+See the subsection "Locks vs I/O accesses" for more information.
+
+
+===============================
+IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
+===============================
+
+Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst
+which are locking, scheduling and memory allocation functions.
+
+This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may
+provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside
+of arch specific code.
+
+
+LOCKING FUNCTIONS
+-----------------
+
+The Linux kernel has a number of locking constructs:
+
+ (*) spin locks
+ (*) R/W spin locks
+ (*) mutexes
+ (*) semaphores
+ (*) R/W semaphores
+ (*) RCU
+
+In all cases there are variants on "LOCK" operations and "UNLOCK" operations
+for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
+
+ (1) LOCK operation implication:
+
+     Memory operations issued after the LOCK will be completed after the LOCK
+     operation has completed.
+
+     Memory operations issued before the LOCK may be completed after the LOCK
+     operation has completed.
+
+ (2) UNLOCK operation implication:
+
+     Memory operations issued before the UNLOCK will be completed before the
+     UNLOCK operation has completed.
+
+     Memory operations issued after the UNLOCK may be completed before the
+     UNLOCK operation has completed.
+
+ (3) LOCK vs LOCK implication:
+
+     All LOCK operations issued before another LOCK operation will be completed
+     before that LOCK operation.
+
+ (4) LOCK vs UNLOCK implication:
+
+     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
+     unable to get the lock immediately, or due to receiving an unblocked
+     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 consequence of LOCKs and UNLOCKs being only one-way
+    barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may
+    seep into the inside of the critical section.
+
+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
+with interrupt disabling operations.
+
+See also the section on "Inter-CPU locking barrier effects".
+
+
+As an example, consider the following:
+
+	*A = a;
+	*B = b;
+	LOCK
+	*C = c;
+	*D = d;
+	UNLOCK
+	*E = e;
+	*F = f;
+
+The following sequence of events is acceptable:
+
+	LOCK, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, UNLOCK
+
+	[+] Note that {*F,*A} indicates a combined access.
+
+But none of the following are:
+
+	{*F,*A}, *B,	LOCK, *C, *D,	UNLOCK, *E
+	*A, *B, *C,	LOCK, *D,	UNLOCK, *E, *F
+	*A, *B,		LOCK, *C,	UNLOCK, *D, *E, *F
+	*B,		LOCK, *C, *D,	UNLOCK, {*F,*A}, *E
+
+
+
+INTERRUPT DISABLING FUNCTIONS
+-----------------------------
+
+Functions that disable interrupts (LOCK equivalent) and enable interrupts
+(UNLOCK equivalent) will act as compiler barriers only.  So if memory or I/O
+barriers are required in such a situation, they must be provided from some
+other means.
+
+
+MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS
+-----------------------
+
+Other functions that imply barriers:
+
+ (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
+
+ (*) Memory allocation and release functions imply full memory barriers.
+
+
+=================================
+INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS
+=================================
+
+On SMP systems locking primitives give a more substantial form of barrier: one
+that does affect memory access ordering on other CPUs, within the context of
+conflict on any particular lock.
+
+
+LOCKS VS MEMORY ACCESSES
+------------------------
+
+Consider the following: the system has a pair of spinlocks (N) and (Q), and
+three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
+
+	CPU 1				CPU 2
+	===============================	===============================
+	*A = a;				*E = e;
+	LOCK M				LOCK Q
+	*B = b;				*F = f;
+	*C = c;				*G = g;
+	UNLOCK M			UNLOCK Q
+	*D = d;				*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
+on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see:
+
+	*E, LOCK M, LOCK Q, *G, *C, *F, *A, *B, UNLOCK Q, *D, *H, UNLOCK M
+
+But it won't see any of:
+
+	*B, *C or *D preceding LOCK M
+	*A, *B or *C following UNLOCK M
+	*F, *G or *H preceding LOCK Q
+	*E, *F or *G following UNLOCK Q
+
+
+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;
+
+CPU #3 might see:
+
+	*E, LOCK M [1], *C, *B, *A, UNLOCK M [1],
+		LOCK M [2], *H, *F, *G, UNLOCK M [2], *D
+
+But assuming CPU #1 gets the lock first, it won't see any of:
+
+	*B, *C, *D, *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [1]
+	*A, *B or *C following UNLOCK M [1]
+	*F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [2]
+	*A, *B, *C, *E, *F or *G following UNLOCK M [2]
+
+
+LOCKS VS I/O ACCESSES
+---------------------
+
+Under certain circumstances (especially involving NUMA), I/O accesses within
+two spinlocked sections on two different CPUs may be seen as interleaved by the
+PCI bridge, because the PCI bridge does not necessarily participate in the
+cache-coherence protocol, and is therefore incapable of issuing the required
+read memory barriers.
+
+For example:
+
+	CPU 1				CPU 2
+	===============================	===============================
+	spin_lock(Q)
+	writel(0, ADDR)
+	writel(1, DATA);
+	spin_unlock(Q);
+					spin_lock(Q);
+					writel(4, ADDR);
+					writel(5, DATA);
+					spin_unlock(Q);
+
+may be seen by the PCI bridge as follows:
+
+	STORE *ADDR = 0, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = 1, STORE *DATA = 5
+
+which would probably cause the hardware to malfunction.
+
+
+What is necessary here is to intervene with an mmiowb() before dropping the
+spinlock, for example:
+
+	CPU 1				CPU 2
+	===============================	===============================
+	spin_lock(Q)
+	writel(0, ADDR)
+	writel(1, DATA);
+	mmiowb();
+	spin_unlock(Q);
+					spin_lock(Q);
+					writel(4, ADDR);
+					writel(5, DATA);
+					mmiowb();
+					spin_unlock(Q);
+
+this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU #1 appear at the PCI bridge
+before either of the stores issued on CPU #2.
+
+
+Furthermore, following a store by a load to the same device obviates the need
+for an mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load
+is performed:
+
+	CPU 1				CPU 2
+	===============================	===============================
+	spin_lock(Q)
+	writel(0, ADDR)
+	a = readl(DATA);
+	spin_unlock(Q);
+					spin_lock(Q);
+					writel(4, ADDR);
+					b = readl(DATA);
+					spin_unlock(Q);
+
+
+See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information.
+
+
+=================================
+WHERE ARE MEMORY BARRIERS NEEDED?
+=================================
+
+Under normal operation, memory operation reordering is generally not going to
+be a problem as a single-threaded linear piece of code will still appear to
+work correctly, even if it's in an SMP kernel.  There are, however, three
+circumstances in which reordering definitely _could_ be a problem:
+
+ (*) Interprocessor interaction.
+
+ (*) Atomic operations.
+
+ (*) Accessing devices (I/O).
+
+ (*) Interrupts.
+
+
+INTERPROCESSOR INTERACTION
+--------------------------
+
+When there's a system with more than one processor, more than one CPU in the
+system may be working on the same data set at the same time.  This can cause
+synchronisation problems, and the usual way of dealing with them is to use
+locks.  Locks, however, are quite expensive, and so it may be preferable to
+operate without the use of a lock if at all possible.  In such a case
+operations that affect both CPUs may have to be carefully ordered to prevent
+a malfunction.
+
+Consider, for example, the R/W semaphore slow path.  Here a waiting process is
+queued on the semaphore, by virtue of it having a piece of its stack linked to
+the semaphore's list of waiting processes:
+
+	struct rw_semaphore {
+		...
+		spinlock_t lock;
+		struct list_head waiters;
+	};
+
+	struct rwsem_waiter {
+		struct list_head list;
+		struct task_struct *task;
+	};
+
+To wake up a particular waiter, the up_read() or up_write() functions have to:
+
+ (1) read the next pointer from this waiter's record to know as to where the
+     next waiter record is;
+
+ (4) read the pointer to the waiter's task structure;
+
+ (3) clear the task pointer to tell the waiter it has been given the semaphore;
+
+ (4) call wake_up_process() on the task; and
+
+ (5) release the reference held on the waiter's task struct.
+
+In otherwords, it has to perform this sequence of events:
+
+	LOAD waiter->list.next;
+	LOAD waiter->task;
+	STORE waiter->task;
+	CALL wakeup
+	RELEASE task
+
+and if any of these steps occur out of order, then the whole thing may
+malfunction.
+
+Once it has queued itself and dropped the semaphore lock, the waiter does not
+get the lock again; it instead just waits for its task pointer to be cleared
+before proceeding.  Since the record is on the waiter's stack, this means that
+if the task pointer is cleared _before_ the next pointer in the list is read,
+another CPU might start processing the waiter and might clobber the waiter's
+stack before the up*() function has a chance to read the next pointer.
+
+Consider then what might happen to the above sequence of events:
+
+	CPU 1				CPU 2
+	===============================	===============================
+					down_xxx()
+					Queue waiter
+					Sleep
+	up_yyy()
+	LOAD waiter->task;
+	STORE waiter->task;
+					Woken up by other event
+	<preempt>
+					Resume processing
+					down_xxx() returns
+					call foo()
+					foo() clobbers *waiter
+	</preempt>
+	LOAD waiter->list.next;
+	--- OOPS ---
+
+This could be dealt with using the semaphore lock, but then the down_xxx()
+function has to needlessly get the spinlock again after being woken up.
+
+The way to deal with this is to insert a general SMP memory barrier:
+
+	LOAD waiter->list.next;
+	LOAD waiter->task;
+	smp_mb();
+	STORE waiter->task;
+	CALL wakeup
+	RELEASE task
+
+In this case, the barrier makes a guarantee that all memory accesses before the
+barrier will appear to happen before all the memory accesses after the barrier
+with respect to the other CPUs on the system.  It does _not_ guarantee that all
+the memory accesses before the barrier will be complete by the time the barrier
+instruction itself is complete.
+
+On a UP system - where this wouldn't be a problem - the smp_mb() is just a
+compiler barrier, thus making sure the compiler emits the instructions in the
+right order without actually intervening in the CPU.  Since there there's only
+one CPU, that CPU's dependency ordering logic will take care of everything
+else.
+
+
+ATOMIC OPERATIONS
+-----------------
+
+Though they are technically interprocessor interaction considerations, atomic
+operations are noted specially as they do _not_ generally imply memory
+barriers.  The possible offenders include:
+
+	xchg();
+	cmpxchg();
+	test_and_set_bit();
+	test_and_clear_bit();
+	test_and_change_bit();
+	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();
+
+These may be used for such things as implementing LOCK operations or controlling
+the lifetime of objects by decreasing their reference counts.  In such cases
+they need preceding memory barriers.
+
+The following may also be possible offenders as they may be used as UNLOCK
+operations.
+
+	set_bit();
+	clear_bit();
+	change_bit();
+	atomic_set();
+
+
+The following are a little tricky:
+
+	atomic_add();
+	atomic_sub();
+	atomic_inc();
+	atomic_dec();
+
+If they're used for statistics generation, then they probably don't need memory
+barriers, unless there's a coupling between statistical data.
+
+If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime,
+they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count
+will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold
+sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary.
+
+If they're used for constructing a lock of some description, then they probably
+do need memory barriers as a lock primitive generally has to do things in a
+specific order.
+
+
+Basically, each usage case has to be carefully considered as to whether memory
+barriers are needed or not.  The simplest rule is probably: if the atomic
+operation is protected by a lock, then it does not require a barrier unless
+there's another operation within the critical section with respect to which an
+ordering must be maintained.
+
+See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information.
+
+
+ACCESSING DEVICES
+-----------------
+
+Many devices can be memory mapped, and so appear to the CPU as if they're just
+a set of memory locations.  To control such a device, the driver usually has to
+make the right memory accesses in exactly the right order.
+
+However, having a clever CPU or a clever compiler creates a potential problem
+in that the carefully sequenced accesses in the driver code won't reach the
+device in the requisite order if the CPU or the compiler thinks it is more
+efficient to reorder, combine or merge accesses - something that would cause
+the device to malfunction.
+
+Inside of the Linux kernel, I/O should be done through the appropriate accessor
+routines - such as inb() or writel() - which know how to make such accesses
+appropriately sequential.  Whilst this, for the most part, renders the explicit
+use of memory barriers unnecessary, there are a couple of situations where they
+might be needed:
+
+ (1) On some systems, I/O stores are not strongly ordered across all CPUs, and
+     so for _all_ general drivers locks should be used and mmiowb() must be
+     issued prior to unlocking the critical section.
+
+ (2) If the accessor functions are used to refer to an I/O memory window with
+     relaxed memory access properties, then _mandatory_ memory barriers are
+     required to enforce ordering.
+
+See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information.
+
+
+INTERRUPTS
+----------
+
+A driver may be interrupted by its own interrupt service routine, and thus the
+two parts of the driver may interfere with each other's attempts to control or
+access the device.
+
+This may be alleviated - at least in part - by disabling local interrupts (a
+form of locking), such that the critical operations are all contained within
+the interrupt-disabled section in the driver.  Whilst the driver's interrupt
+routine is executing, the driver's core may not run on the same CPU, and its
+interrupt is not permitted to happen again until the current interrupt has been
+handled, thus the interrupt handler does not need to lock against that.
+
+However, consider a driver that was talking to an ethernet card that sports an
+address register and a data register.  If that driver's core talks to the card
+under interrupt-disablement and then the driver's interrupt handler is invoked:
+
+	LOCAL IRQ DISABLE
+	writew(ADDR, 3);
+	writew(DATA, y);
+	LOCAL IRQ ENABLE
+	<interrupt>
+	writew(ADDR, 4);
+	q = readw(DATA);
+	</interrupt>
+
+The store to the data register might happen after the second store to the
+address register if ordering rules are sufficiently relaxed:
+
+	STORE *ADDR = 3, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = y, q = LOAD *DATA
+
+
+If ordering rules are relaxed, it must be assumed that accesses done inside an
+interrupt disabled section may leak outside of it and may interleave with
+accesses performed in an interrupt - and vice versa - unless implicit or
+explicit barriers are used.
+
+Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such
+sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O
+registers that form implicit I/O barriers. If this isn't sufficient then an
+mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly.
+
+
+A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines
+running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other. If such a case is
+likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering.
+
+
+==========================
+KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS
+==========================
+
+When accessing I/O memory, drivers should use the appropriate accessor
+functions:
+
+ (*) inX(), outX():
+
+     These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but
+     that's primarily a CPU-specific concept. The i386 and x86_64 processors do
+     indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
+     CPUs don't have such a concept.
+
+     The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept - which on such
+     CPUs as i386 and x86_64 cpus readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O
+     space.  However, it may also mapped as a virtual I/O space in the CPU's
+     memory map, particularly on those CPUs that don't support alternate
+     I/O spaces.
+
+     Accesses to this space may be fully synchronous (as on i386), but
+     intermediary bridges (such as the PCI host bridge) may not fully honour
+     that.
+
+     They are guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to each other.
+
+     They are not guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to other types of
+     memory and I/O operation.
+
+ (*) readX(), writeX():
+
+     Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with
+     respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics
+     defined for the memory window through which they're accessing. On later
+     i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the
+     MTRR registers.
+
+     Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined,,
+     provided they're not accessing a prefetchable device.
+
+     However, intermediary hardware (such as a PCI bridge) may indulge in
+     deferral if it so wishes; to flush a store, a load from the same location
+     is preferred[*], but a load from the same device or from configuration
+     space should suffice for PCI.
+
+     [*] NOTE! attempting to load from the same location as was written to may
+     	 cause a malfunction - consider the 16550 Rx/Tx serial registers for
+     	 example.
+
+     Used with prefetchable I/O memory, an mmiowb() barrier may be required to
+     force stores to be ordered.
+
+     Please refer to the PCI specification for more information on interactions
+     between PCI transactions.
+
+ (*) readX_relaxed()
+
+     These are similar to readX(), but are not guaranteed to be ordered in any
+     way. Be aware that there is no I/O read barrier available.
+
+ (*) ioreadX(), iowriteX()
+
+     These will perform as appropriate for the type of access they're actually
+     doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX().
+
+
+========================================
+ASSUMED MINIMUM EXECUTION ORDERING MODEL
+========================================
+
+It has to be assumed that the conceptual CPU is weakly-ordered but that it will
+maintain the appearance of program causality with respect to itself.  Some CPUs
+(such as i386 or x86_64) are more constrained than others (such as powerpc or
+frv), and so the most relaxed case (namely DEC Alpha) must be assumed outside
+of arch-specific code.
+
+This means that it must be considered that the CPU will execute its instruction
+stream in any order it feels like - or even in parallel - provided that if an
+instruction in the stream depends on the an earlier instruction, then that
+earlier instruction must be sufficiently complete[*] before the later
+instruction may proceed; in other words: provided that the appearance of
+causality is maintained.
+
+ [*] Some instructions have more than one effect - such as changing the
+     condition codes, changing registers or changing memory - and different
+     instructions may depend on different effects.
+
+A CPU may also discard any instruction sequence that winds up having no
+ultimate effect.  For example, if two adjacent instructions both load an
+immediate value into the same register, the first may be discarded.
+
+
+Similarly, it has to be assumed that compiler might reorder the instruction
+stream in any way it sees fit, again provided the appearance of causality is
+maintained.
+
+
+============================
+THE EFFECTS OF THE CPU CACHE
+============================
+
+The way cached memory operations are perceived across the system is affected to
+a certain extent by the caches that lie between CPUs and memory, and by the
+memory coherence system that maintains the consistency of state in the system.
+
+As far as the way a CPU interacts with another part of the system through the
+caches goes, the memory system has to include the CPU's caches, and memory
+barriers for the most part act at the interface between the CPU and its cache
+(memory barriers logically act on the dotted line in the following diagram):
+
+	    <--- CPU --->         :       <----------- Memory ----------->
+	                          :
+	+--------+    +--------+  :   +--------+    +-----------+
+	|        |    |        |  :   |        |    |           |    +--------+
+	|  CPU   |    | Memory |  :   | CPU    |    |           |    |	      |
+	|  Core  |--->| Access |----->| Cache  |<-->|           |    |	      |
+	|        |    | Queue  |  :   |        |    |           |--->| Memory |
+	|        |    |        |  :   |        |    |           |    |	      |
+	+--------+    +--------+  :   +--------+    |           |    | 	      |
+	                          :                 | Cache     |    +--------+
+	                          :                 | Coherency |
+	                          :                 | Mechanism |    +--------+
+	+--------+    +--------+  :   +--------+    |           |    |	      |
+	|        |    |        |  :   |        |    |           |    |        |
+	|  CPU   |    | Memory |  :   | CPU    |    |           |--->| Device |
+	|  Core  |--->| Access |----->| Cache  |<-->|           |    | 	      |
+	|        |    | Queue  |  :   |        |    |           |    | 	      |
+	|        |    |        |  :   |        |    |           |    +--------+
+	+--------+    +--------+  :   +--------+    +-----------+
+	                          :
+	                          :
+
+Although any particular load or store may not actually appear outside of the
+CPU that issued it since it may have been satisfied within the CPU's own cache,
+it will still appear as if the full memory access had taken place as far as the
+other CPUs are concerned since the cache coherency mechanisms will migrate the
+cacheline over to the accessing CPU and propagate the effects upon conflict.
+
+The CPU core may execute instructions in any order it deems fit, provided the
+expected program causality appears to be maintained.  Some of the instructions
+generate load and store operations which then go into the queue of memory
+accesses to be performed.  The core may place these in the queue in any order
+it wishes, and continue execution until it is forced to wait for an instruction
+to complete.
+
+What memory barriers are concerned with is controlling the order in which
+accesses cross from the CPU side of things to the memory side of things, and
+the order in which the effects are perceived to happen by the other observers
+in the system.
+
+[!] Memory barriers are _not_ needed within a given CPU, as CPUs always see
+their own loads and stores as if they had happened in program order.
+
+[!] MMIO or other device accesses may bypass the cache system.  This depends on
+the properties of the memory window through which devices are accessed and/or
+the use of any special device communication instructions the CPU may have.
+
+
+CACHE COHERENCY
+---------------
+
+Life isn't quite as simple as it may appear above, however: for while the
+caches are expected to be coherent, there's no guarantee that that coherency
+will be ordered.  This means that whilst changes made on one CPU will
+eventually become visible on all CPUs, there's no guarantee that they will
+become apparent in the same order on those other CPUs.
+
+
+Consider dealing with a system that has pair of CPUs (1 & 2), each of which has
+a pair of parallel data caches (CPU 1 has A/B, and CPU 2 has C/D):
+
+	            :
+	            :                          +--------+
+	            :      +---------+         |        |
+	+--------+  : +--->| Cache A |<------->|        |
+	|        |  : |    +---------+         |        |
+	|  CPU 1 |<---+                        |        |
+	|        |  : |    +---------+         |        |
+	+--------+  : +--->| Cache B |<------->|        |
+	            :      +---------+         |        |
+	            :                          | Memory |
+	            :      +---------+         | System |
+	+--------+  : +--->| Cache C |<------->|        |
+	|        |  : |    +---------+         |        |
+	|  CPU 2 |<---+                        |        |
+	|        |  : |    +---------+         |        |
+	+--------+  : +--->| Cache D |<------->|        |
+	            :      +---------+         |        |
+	            :                          +--------+
+	            :
+
+Imagine the system has the following properties:
+
+ (*) an odd-numbered cache line may be in cache A, cache C or it may still be
+     resident in memory;
+
+ (*) an even-numbered cache line may be in cache B, cache D or it may still be
+     resident in memory;
+
+ (*) whilst the CPU core is interrogating one cache, the other cache may be
+     making use of the bus to access the rest of the system - perhaps to
+     displace a dirty cacheline or to do a speculative load;
+
+ (*) each cache has a queue of operations that need to be applied to that cache
+     to maintain coherency with the rest of the system;
+
+ (*) the coherency queue is not flushed by normal loads to lines already
+     present in the cache, even though the contents of the queue may
+     potentially effect those loads.
+
+Imagine, then, that two writes are made on the first CPU, with a write barrier
+between them to guarantee that they will appear to reach that CPU's caches in
+the requisite order:
+
+	CPU 1		CPU 2		COMMENT
+	===============	===============	=======================================
+					u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
+	v = 2;
+	smp_wmb();			Make sure change to v visible before
+					 change to p
+	<A:modify v=2>			v is now in cache A exclusively
+	p = &v;
+	<B:modify p=&v>			p is now in cache B exclusively
+
+The write memory barrier forces the other CPUs in the system to perceive that
+the local CPU's caches have apparently been updated in the correct order.  But
+now imagine that the second CPU that wants to read those values:
+
+	CPU 1		CPU 2		COMMENT
+	===============	===============	=======================================
+	...
+			q = p;
+			x = *q;
+
+The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in expected order, as the
+cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches whilst
+the update to the cacheline holding v is delayed in the other of the second
+CPU's caches by some other cache event:
+
+	CPU 1		CPU 2		COMMENT
+	===============	===============	=======================================
+					u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
+	v = 2;
+	smp_wmb();
+	<A:modify v=2>	<C:busy>
+			<C:queue v=2>
+	p = &b;		q = p;
+			<D:request p>
+	<B:modify p=&v>	<D:commit p=&v>
+		  	<D:read p>
+			x = *q;
+			<C:read *q>	Reads from v before v updated in cache
+			<C:unbusy>
+			<C:commit v=2>
+
+Basically, whilst both cachelines will be updated on CPU 2 eventually, there's
+no guarantee that, without intervention, the order of update will be the same
+as that committed on CPU 1.
+
+
+To intervene, we need to interpolate a data dependency barrier or a read
+barrier between the loads.  This will force the cache to commit its coherency
+queue before processing any further requests:
+
+	CPU 1		CPU 2		COMMENT
+	===============	===============	=======================================
+					u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
+	v = 2;
+	smp_wmb();
+	<A:modify v=2>	<C:busy>
+			<C:queue v=2>
+	p = &b;		q = p;
+			<D:request p>
+	<B:modify p=&v>	<D:commit p=&v>
+		  	<D:read p>
+			smp_read_barrier_depends()
+			<C:unbusy>
+			<C:commit v=2>
+			x = *q;
+			<C:read *q>	Reads from v after v updated in cache
+
+
+This sort of problem can be encountered on DEC Alpha processors as they have a
+split cache that improves performance by making better use of the data bus.
+Whilst most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory
+access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on.
+
+Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various
+cachelets for normal memory accesss.  The semantics of the Alpha removes the
+need for coordination in absence of memory barriers.
+
+
+CACHE COHERENCY VS DMA
+----------------------
+
+Not all systems maintain cache coherency with respect to devices doing DMA.  In
+such cases, a device attempting DMA may obtain stale data from RAM because
+dirty cache lines may be resident in the caches of various CPUs, and may not
+have been written back to RAM yet.  To deal with this, the appropriate part of
+the kernel must flush the overlapping bits of cache on each CPU (and maybe
+invalidate them as well).
+
+In addition, the data DMA'd to RAM by a device may be overwritten by dirty
+cache lines being written back to RAM from a CPU's cache after the device has
+installed its own data, or cache lines simply present in a CPUs cache may
+simply obscure the fact that RAM has been updated, until at such time as the
+cacheline is discarded from the CPU's cache and reloaded.  To deal with this,
+the appropriate part of the kernel must invalidate the overlapping bits of the
+cache on each CPU.
+
+See Documentation/cachetlb.txt for more information on cache management.
+
+
+CACHE COHERENCY VS MMIO
+-----------------------
+
+Memory mapped I/O usually takes place through memory locations that are part of
+a window in the CPU's memory space that have different properties assigned than
+the usual RAM directed window.
+
+Amongst these properties is usually the fact that such accesses bypass the
+caching entirely and go directly to the device buses.  This means MMIO accesses
+may, in effect, overtake accesses to cached memory that were emitted earlier.
+A memory barrier isn't sufficient in such a case, but rather the cache must be
+flushed between the cached memory write and the MMIO access if the two are in
+any way dependent.
+
+
+=========================
+THE THINGS CPUS GET UP TO
+=========================
+
+A programmer might take it for granted that the CPU will perform memory
+operations in exactly the order specified, so that if a CPU is, for example,
+given the following piece of code to execute:
+
+	a = *A;
+	*B = b;
+	c = *C;
+	d = *D;
+	*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
+operations as seen by external observers in the system:
+
+	LOAD *A, STORE *B, LOAD *C, LOAD *D, STORE *E.
+
+
+Reality is, of course, much messier.  With many CPUs and compilers, the above
+assumption doesn't hold because:
+
+ (*) loads are more likely to need to be completed immediately to permit
+     execution progress, whereas stores can often be deferred without a
+     problem;
+
+ (*) loads may be done speculatively, and the result discarded should it prove
+     to have been unnecessary;
+
+ (*) loads may be done speculatively, leading to the result having being
+     fetched at the wrong time in the expected sequence of events;
+
+ (*) the order of the memory accesses may be rearranged to promote better use
+     of the CPU buses and caches;
+
+ (*) loads and stores may be combined to improve performance when talking to
+     memory or I/O hardware that can do batched accesses of adjacent locations,
+     thus cutting down on transaction setup costs (memory and PCI devices may
+     both be able to do this); and
+
+ (*) the CPU's data cache may affect the ordering, and whilst cache-coherency
+     mechanisms may alleviate this - once the store has actually hit the cache
+     - there's no guarantee that the coherency management will be propagated in
+     order to other CPUs.
+
+So what another CPU, say, might actually observe from the above piece of code
+is:
+
+	LOAD *A, ..., LOAD {*C,*D}, STORE *E, STORE *B
+
+	(Where "LOAD {*C,*D}" is a combined load)
+
+
+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;
+
+and assuming no intervention by an external influence, it can be assumed that
+the final result will appear to be:
+
+	U == the original value of *A
+	X == W
+	Z == Y
+	*A == Y
+
+The code above may cause the CPU to generate the full sequence of memory
+accesses:
+
+	U=LOAD *A, STORE *A=V, STORE *A=W, X=LOAD *A, STORE *A=Y, Z=LOAD *A
+
+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 compiler may also combine, discard or defer elements of the sequence before
+the CPU even sees them.
+
+For instance:
+
+	*A = V;
+	*A = W;
+
+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:
+
+	*A = Y;
+	Z = *A;
+
+may, without a memory barrier, be reduced to:
+
+	*A = Y;
+	Z = Y;
+
+and the LOAD operation never appear outside of the CPU.
+
+
+AND THEN THERE'S THE ALPHA
+--------------------------
+
+The DEC Alpha CPU is one of the most relaxed CPUs there is.  Not only that,
+some versions of the Alpha CPU have a split data cache, permitting them to have
+two semantically related cache lines updating at separate times.  This is where
+the data dependency barrier really becomes necessary as this synchronises both
+caches with the memory coherence system, thus making it seem like pointer
+changes vs new data occur in the right order.
+
+The Alpha defines the Linux's kernel's memory barrier model.
+
+See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above.
+
+
+==========
+REFERENCES
+==========
+
+Alpha AXP Architecture Reference Manual, Second Edition (Sites & Witek,
+Digital Press)
+	Chapter 5.2: Physical Address Space Characteristics
+	Chapter 5.4: Caches and Write Buffers
+	Chapter 5.5: Data Sharing
+	Chapter 5.6: Read/Write Ordering
+
+AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming
+	Chapter 7.1: Memory-Access Ordering
+	Chapter 7.4: Buffering and Combining Memory Writes
+
+IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3:
+System Programming Guide
+	Chapter 7.1: Locked Atomic Operations
+	Chapter 7.2: Memory Ordering
+	Chapter 7.4: Serializing Instructions
+
+The SPARC Architecture Manual, Version 9
+	Chapter 8: Memory Models
+	Appendix D: Formal Specification of the Memory Models
+	Appendix J: Programming with the Memory Models
+
+UltraSPARC Programmer Reference Manual
+	Chapter 5: Memory Accesses and Cacheability
+	Chapter 15: Sparc-V9 Memory Models
+
+UltraSPARC III Cu User's Manual
+	Chapter 9: Memory Models
+
+UltraSPARC IIIi Processor User's Manual
+	Chapter 8: Memory Models
+
+UltraSPARC Architecture 2005
+	Chapter 9: Memory
+	Appendix D: Formal Specifications of the Memory Models
+
+UltraSPARC T1 Supplement to the UltraSPARC Architecture 2005
+	Chapter 8: Memory Models
+	Appendix F: Caches and Cache Coherency
+
+Solaris Internals, Core Kernel Architecture, p63-68:
+	Chapter 3.3: Hardware Considerations for Locks and
+			Synchronization
+
+Unix Systems for Modern Architectures, Symmetric Multiprocessing and Caching
+for Kernel Programmers:
+	Chapter 13: Other Memory Models
+
+Intel Itanium Architecture Software Developer's Manual: Volume 1:
+	Section 2.6: Speculation
+	Section 4.4: Memory Access