locking/atomics, mm: Convert ACCESS_ONCE() to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()

For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.

However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.

It's possible to transform the bulk of kernel code using the Coccinelle
script below. However, this doesn't handle comments, leaving references
to ACCESS_ONCE() instances which have been removed. As a preparatory
step, this patch converts the mm code and comments to use
{READ,WRITE}_ONCE() consistently.

----
virtual patch

@ depends on patch @
expression E1, E2;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2
+ WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2)

@ depends on patch @
expression E;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E)
+ READ_ONCE(E)
----
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: shuah@kernel.org
Cc: snitzer@redhat.com
Cc: thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508792849-3115-15-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.comSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

mm/memory.c

@@ -3891,9 +3891,9 @@ static int handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 		/*
 		 * some architectures can have larger ptes than wordsize,
 		 * e.g.ppc44x-defconfig has CONFIG_PTE_64BIT=y and
-		 * CONFIG_32BIT=y, so READ_ONCE or ACCESS_ONCE cannot guarantee
-		 * atomic accesses.  The code below just needs a consistent
-		 * view for the ifs and we later double check anyway with the
+		 * CONFIG_32BIT=y, so READ_ONCE cannot guarantee atomic
+		 * accesses.  The code below just needs a consistent view
+		 * for the ifs and we later double check anyway with the
 		 * ptl lock held. So here a barrier will do.
 		 */
 		barrier();