diff --git a/docs/devel/atomics.rst b/docs/devel/atomics.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..83ed3d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/atomics.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,446 @@
+=========================
+Atomic operations in QEMU
+=========================
+
+CPUs perform independent memory operations effectively in random order.
+but this can be a problem for CPU-CPU interaction (including interactions
+between QEMU and the guest).  Multi-threaded programs use various tools
+to instruct the compiler and the CPU to restrict the order to something
+that is consistent with the expectations of the programmer.
+
+The most basic tool is locking.  Mutexes, condition variables and
+semaphores are used in QEMU, and should be the default approach to
+synchronization.  Anything else is considerably harder, but it's
+also justified more often than one would like.  The two tools that
+are provided by ``qemu/atomic.h`` are memory barriers and atomic operations.
+
+Macros defined by ``qemu/atomic.h`` fall in three camps:
+
+- compiler barriers: ``barrier()``;
+
+- weak atomic access and manual memory barriers: ``atomic_read()``,
+  ``atomic_set()``, ``smp_rmb()``, ``smp_wmb()``, ``smp_mb()``, ``smp_mb_acquire()``,
+  ``smp_mb_release()``, ``smp_read_barrier_depends()``;
+
+- sequentially consistent atomic access: everything else.
+
+
+Compiler memory barrier
+=======================
+
+``barrier()`` prevents the compiler from moving the memory accesses either
+side of it to the other side.  The compiler barrier has no direct effect
+on the CPU, which may then reorder things however it wishes.
+
+``barrier()`` is mostly used within ``qemu/atomic.h`` itself.  On some
+architectures, CPU guarantees are strong enough that blocking compiler
+optimizations already ensures the correct order of execution.  In this
+case, ``qemu/atomic.h`` will reduce stronger memory barriers to simple
+compiler barriers.
+
+Still, ``barrier()`` can be useful when writing code that can be interrupted
+by signal handlers.
+
+
+Sequentially consistent atomic access
+=====================================
+
+Most of the operations in the ``qemu/atomic.h`` header ensure *sequential
+consistency*, where "the result of any execution is the same as if the
+operations of all the processors were executed in some sequential order,
+and the operations of each individual processor appear in this sequence
+in the order specified by its program".
+
+``qemu/atomic.h`` provides the following set of atomic read-modify-write
+operations::
+
+    void atomic_inc(ptr)
+    void atomic_dec(ptr)
+    void atomic_add(ptr, val)
+    void atomic_sub(ptr, val)
+    void atomic_and(ptr, val)
+    void atomic_or(ptr, val)
+
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_inc(ptr)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_dec(ptr)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_add(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_sub(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_and(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_or(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_xor(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_inc_nonzero(ptr)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_xchg(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_cmpxchg(ptr, old, new)
+
+all of which return the old value of ``*ptr``.  These operations are
+polymorphic; they operate on any type that is as wide as a pointer.
+
+Similar operations return the new value of ``*ptr``::
+
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_inc_fetch(ptr)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_dec_fetch(ptr)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_add_fetch(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_sub_fetch(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_and_fetch(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_or_fetch(ptr, val)
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_xor_fetch(ptr, val)
+
+Sequentially consistent loads and stores can be done using::
+
+    atomic_fetch_add(ptr, 0) for loads
+    atomic_xchg(ptr, val) for stores
+
+However, they are quite expensive on some platforms, notably POWER and
+Arm.  Therefore, qemu/atomic.h provides two primitives with slightly
+weaker constraints::
+
+    typeof(*ptr) atomic_mb_read(ptr)
+    void         atomic_mb_set(ptr, val)
+
+The semantics of these primitives map to Java volatile variables,
+and are strongly related to memory barriers as used in the Linux
+kernel (see below).
+
+As long as you use atomic_mb_read and atomic_mb_set, accesses cannot
+be reordered with each other, and it is also not possible to reorder
+"normal" accesses around them.
+
+However, and this is the important difference between
+atomic_mb_read/atomic_mb_set and sequential consistency, it is important
+for both threads to access the same volatile variable.  It is not the
+case that everything visible to thread A when it writes volatile field f
+becomes visible to thread B after it reads volatile field g. The store
+and load have to "match" (i.e., be performed on the same volatile
+field) to achieve the right semantics.
+
+
+These operations operate on any type that is as wide as an int or smaller.
+
+
+Weak atomic access and manual memory barriers
+=============================================
+
+Compared to sequentially consistent atomic access, programming with
+weaker consistency models can be considerably more complicated.
+In general, if the algorithm you are writing includes both writes
+and reads on the same side, it is generally simpler to use sequentially
+consistent primitives.
+
+When using this model, variables are accessed with:
+
+- ``atomic_read()`` and ``atomic_set()``; these prevent the compiler from
+  optimizing accesses out of existence and creating unsolicited
+  accesses, but do not otherwise impose any ordering on loads and
+  stores: both the compiler and the processor are free to reorder
+  them.
+
+- ``atomic_load_acquire()``, which guarantees the LOAD to appear to
+  happen, with respect to the other components of the system,
+  before all the LOAD or STORE operations specified afterwards.
+  Operations coming before ``atomic_load_acquire()`` can still be
+  reordered after it.
+
+- ``atomic_store_release()``, which guarantees the STORE to appear to
+  happen, with respect to the other components of the system,
+  after all the LOAD or STORE operations specified afterwards.
+  Operations coming after ``atomic_store_release()`` can still be
+  reordered after it.
+
+Restrictions to the ordering of accesses can also be specified
+using the memory barrier macros: ``smp_rmb()``, ``smp_wmb()``, ``smp_mb()``,
+``smp_mb_acquire()``, ``smp_mb_release()``, ``smp_read_barrier_depends()``.
+
+Memory barriers control the order of references to shared memory.
+They come in six kinds:
+
+- ``smp_rmb()`` guarantees 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.
+
+  In other words, ``smp_rmb()`` puts a partial ordering on loads, but is not
+  required to have any effect on stores.
+
+- ``smp_wmb()`` guarantees 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.
+
+  In other words, ``smp_wmb()`` puts a partial ordering on stores, but is not
+  required to have any effect on loads.
+
+- ``smp_mb_acquire()`` guarantees that all the LOAD operations specified before
+  the barrier will appear to happen before all the LOAD or STORE operations
+  specified after the barrier with respect to the other components of
+  the system.
+
+- ``smp_mb_release()`` guarantees that all the STORE operations specified *after*
+  the barrier will appear to happen after all the LOAD or STORE operations
+  specified *before* the barrier with respect to the other components of
+  the system.
+
+- ``smp_mb()`` guarantees that all the LOAD and STORE operations specified
+  before the barrier will appear to happen before all the LOAD and
+  STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to the other
+  components of the system.
+
+  ``smp_mb()`` puts a partial ordering on both loads and stores.  It is
+  stronger than both a read and a write memory barrier; it implies both
+  ``smp_mb_acquire()`` and ``smp_mb_release()``, but it also prevents STOREs
+  coming before the barrier from overtaking LOADs coming after the
+  barrier and vice versa.
+
+- ``smp_read_barrier_depends()`` is a weaker kind of read barrier.  On
+  most processors, whenever two loads are performed such that the
+  second depends on the result of the first (e.g., the first load
+  retrieves the address to which the second load will be directed),
+  the processor will guarantee that the first LOAD will appear to happen
+  before the second with respect to the other components of the system.
+  However, this is not always true---for example, it was not true on
+  Alpha processors.  Whenever this kind of access happens to shared
+  memory (that is not protected by a lock), a read barrier is needed,
+  and ``smp_read_barrier_depends()`` can be used instead of ``smp_rmb()``.
+
+  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.
+
+
+This is the set of barriers that is required *between* two ``atomic_read()``
+and ``atomic_set()`` operations to achieve sequential consistency:
+
+   +----------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+   |                |                 2nd operation                         |
+   |                +------------------+-----------------+------------------+
+   | 1st operation  | (after last)     | atomic_read     | atomic_set       |
+   +----------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+
+   | (before first) | ..               | none            | smp_mb_release() |
+   +----------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+
+   | atomic_read    | smp_mb_acquire() | smp_rmb() [1]_  | [2]_             |
+   +----------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+
+   | atomic_set     | none             | smp_mb() [3]_   | smp_wmb()        |
+   +----------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+
+
+   .. [1] Or smp_read_barrier_depends().
+
+   .. [2] This requires a load-store barrier.  This is achieved by
+          either smp_mb_acquire() or smp_mb_release().
+
+   .. [3] This requires a store-load barrier.  On most machines, the only
+          way to achieve this is a full barrier.
+
+
+You can see that the two possible definitions of ``atomic_mb_read()``
+and ``atomic_mb_set()`` are the following:
+
+  1) | atomic_mb_read(p)   = atomic_read(p); smp_mb_acquire()
+     | atomic_mb_set(p, v) = smp_mb_release(); atomic_set(p, v); smp_mb()
+
+  2) | atomic_mb_read(p)   = smp_mb() atomic_read(p); smp_mb_acquire()
+     | atomic_mb_set(p, v) = smp_mb_release(); atomic_set(p, v);
+
+Usually the former is used, because ``smp_mb()`` is expensive and a program
+normally has more reads than writes.  Therefore it makes more sense to
+make ``atomic_mb_set()`` the more expensive operation.
+
+There are two common cases in which atomic_mb_read and atomic_mb_set
+generate too many memory barriers, and thus it can be useful to manually
+place barriers, or use atomic_load_acquire/atomic_store_release instead:
+
+- when a data structure has one thread that is always a writer
+  and one thread that is always a reader, manual placement of
+  memory barriers makes the write side faster.  Furthermore,
+  correctness is easy to check for in this case using the "pairing"
+  trick that is explained below:
+
+    +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+    | thread 1                                                             |
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+    | before                            | after                            |
+    +===================================+==================================+
+    | ::                                | ::                               |
+    |                                   |                                  |
+    |   (other writes)                  |                                  |
+    |   atomic_mb_set(&a, x)            |   atomic_store_release(&a, x)    |
+    |   atomic_mb_set(&b, y)            |   atomic_store_release(&b, y)    |
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+
+    +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+    | thread 2                                                             |
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+    | before                            | after                            |
+    +===================================+==================================+
+    | ::                                | ::                               |
+    |                                   |                                  |
+    |   y = atomic_mb_read(&b)          |   y = atomic_load_acquire(&b)    |
+    |   x = atomic_mb_read(&a)          |   x = atomic_load_acquire(&a)    |
+    |   (other reads)                   |                                  |
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+
+  Note that the barrier between the stores in thread 1, and between
+  the loads in thread 2, has been optimized here to a write or a
+  read memory barrier respectively.  On some architectures, notably
+  ARMv7, smp_mb_acquire and smp_mb_release are just as expensive as
+  smp_mb, but smp_rmb and/or smp_wmb are more efficient.
+
+- sometimes, a thread is accessing many variables that are otherwise
+  unrelated to each other (for example because, apart from the current
+  thread, exactly one other thread will read or write each of these
+  variables).  In this case, it is possible to "hoist" the implicit
+  barriers provided by ``atomic_mb_read()`` and ``atomic_mb_set()`` outside
+  a loop.  For example, the above definition ``atomic_mb_read()`` gives
+  the following transformation:
+
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+    | before                            | after                            |
+    +===================================+==================================+
+    | ::                                | ::                               |
+    |                                   |                                  |
+    |   n = 0;                          |   n = 0;                         |
+    |   for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)        |   for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)       |
+    |     n += atomic_mb_read(&a[i]);   |     n += atomic_read(&a[i]);     |
+    |                                   |   smp_mb_acquire();              |
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+
+  Similarly, atomic_mb_set() can be transformed as follows:
+
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+    | before                            | after                            |
+    +===================================+==================================+
+    | ::                                | ::                               |
+    |                                   |                                  |
+    |                                   |   smp_mb_release();              |
+    |   for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)        |   for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)       |
+    |     atomic_mb_set(&a[i], false);  |     atomic_set(&a[i], false);    |
+    |                                   |   smp_mb();                      |
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+
+
+  The other thread can still use ``atomic_mb_read()``/``atomic_mb_set()``.
+
+The two tricks can be combined.  In this case, splitting a loop in
+two lets you hoist the barriers out of the loops _and_ eliminate the
+expensive ``smp_mb()``:
+
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+    | before                            | after                            |
+    +===================================+==================================+
+    | ::                                | ::                               |
+    |                                   |                                  |
+    |                                   |     smp_mb_release();            |
+    |   for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {      |     for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)     |
+    |     atomic_mb_set(&a[i], false);  |       atomic_set(&a[i], false);  |
+    |     atomic_mb_set(&b[i], false);  |     smb_wmb();                   |
+    |   }                               |     for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)     |
+    |                                   |       atomic_set(&a[i], false);  |
+    |                                   |     smp_mb();                    |
+    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
+
+
+Memory barrier pairing
+----------------------
+
+A useful rule of thumb is that memory barriers should always, or almost
+always, be paired with another barrier.  In the case of QEMU, however,
+note that the other barrier may actually be in a driver that runs in
+the guest!
+
+For the purposes of pairing, ``smp_read_barrier_depends()`` and ``smp_rmb()``
+both count as read barriers.  A read barrier shall pair with a write
+barrier or a full barrier; a write barrier shall pair with a read
+barrier or a full barrier.  A full barrier can pair with anything.
+For example:
+
+      +--------------------+------------------------------+
+      | thread 1           | thread 2                     |
+      +====================+==============================+
+      | ::                 | ::                           |
+      |                    |                              |
+      |   a = 1;           |                              |
+      |   smp_wmb();       |                              |
+      |   b = 2;           |   x = b;                     |
+      |                    |   smp_rmb();                 |
+      |                    |   y = a;                     |
+      +--------------------+------------------------------+
+
+Note that the "writing" thread is accessing the variables in the
+opposite order as the "reading" thread.  This is expected: stores
+before the write barrier will normally match the loads after the
+read barrier, and vice versa.  The same is true for more than 2
+access and for data dependency barriers:
+
+      +----------------------+------------------------------+
+      | thread 1             | thread 2                     |
+      +======================+==============================+
+      | ::                   | ::                           |
+      |                      |                              |
+      |   b[2] = 1;          |                              |
+      |   smp_wmb();         |                              |
+      |   x->i = 2;          |                              |
+      |   smp_wmb();         |                              |
+      |   a = x;             |  x = a;                      |
+      |                      |  smp_read_barrier_depends(); |
+      |                      |  y = x->i;                   |
+      |                      |  smp_read_barrier_depends(); |
+      |                      |  z = b[y];                   |
+      +----------------------+------------------------------+
+
+``smp_wmb()`` also pairs with ``atomic_mb_read()`` and ``smp_mb_acquire()``.
+and ``smp_rmb()`` also pairs with ``atomic_mb_set()`` and ``smp_mb_release()``.
+
+
+Comparison with Linux kernel memory barriers
+============================================
+
+Here is a list of differences between Linux kernel atomic operations
+and memory barriers, and the equivalents in QEMU:
+
+- atomic operations in Linux are always on a 32-bit int type and
+  use a boxed ``atomic_t`` type; atomic operations in QEMU are polymorphic
+  and use normal C types.
+
+- Originally, ``atomic_read`` and ``atomic_set`` in Linux gave no guarantee
+  at all. Linux 4.1 updated them to implement volatile
+  semantics via ``ACCESS_ONCE`` (or the more recent ``READ``/``WRITE_ONCE``).
+
+  QEMU's ``atomic_read`` and ``atomic_set`` implement C11 atomic relaxed
+  semantics if the compiler supports it, and volatile semantics otherwise.
+  Both semantics prevent the compiler from doing certain transformations;
+  the difference is that atomic accesses are guaranteed to be atomic,
+  while volatile accesses aren't. Thus, in the volatile case we just cross
+  our fingers hoping that the compiler will generate atomic accesses,
+  since we assume the variables passed are machine-word sized and
+  properly aligned.
+
+  No barriers are implied by ``atomic_read`` and ``atomic_set`` in either Linux
+  or QEMU.
+
+- atomic read-modify-write operations in Linux are of three kinds:
+
+         ===================== =========================================
+         ``atomic_OP``         returns void
+         ``atomic_OP_return``  returns new value of the variable
+         ``atomic_fetch_OP``   returns the old value of the variable
+         ``atomic_cmpxchg``    returns the old value of the variable
+         ===================== =========================================
+
+  In QEMU, the second kind does not exist.  Currently Linux has
+  atomic_fetch_or only.  QEMU provides and, or, inc, dec, add, sub.
+
+- different atomic read-modify-write operations in Linux imply
+  a different set of memory barriers; in QEMU, all of them enforce
+  sequential consistency, which means they imply full memory barriers
+  before and after the operation.
+
+- Linux does not have an equivalent of ``atomic_mb_set()``.  In particular,
+  note that ``smp_store_mb()`` is a little weaker than ``atomic_mb_set()``.
+  ``atomic_mb_read()`` compiles to the same instructions as Linux's
+  ``smp_load_acquire()``, but this should be treated as an implementation
+  detail.
+
+Sources
+=======
+
+- ``Documentation/memory-barriers.txt`` from the Linux kernel
diff --git a/docs/devel/atomics.txt b/docs/devel/atomics.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 67bdf82..0000000
--- a/docs/devel/atomics.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,403 +0,0 @@
-CPUs perform independent memory operations effectively in random order.
-but this can be a problem for CPU-CPU interaction (including interactions
-between QEMU and the guest).  Multi-threaded programs use various tools
-to instruct the compiler and the CPU to restrict the order to something
-that is consistent with the expectations of the programmer.
-
-The most basic tool is locking.  Mutexes, condition variables and
-semaphores are used in QEMU, and should be the default approach to
-synchronization.  Anything else is considerably harder, but it's
-also justified more often than one would like.  The two tools that
-are provided by qemu/atomic.h are memory barriers and atomic operations.
-
-Macros defined by qemu/atomic.h fall in three camps:
-
-- compiler barriers: barrier();
-
-- weak atomic access and manual memory barriers: atomic_read(),
-  atomic_set(), smp_rmb(), smp_wmb(), smp_mb(), smp_mb_acquire(),
-  smp_mb_release(), smp_read_barrier_depends();
-
-- sequentially consistent atomic access: everything else.
-
-
-COMPILER MEMORY BARRIER
-=======================
-
-barrier() prevents the compiler from moving the memory accesses either
-side of it to the other side.  The compiler barrier has no direct effect
-on the CPU, which may then reorder things however it wishes.
-
-barrier() is mostly used within qemu/atomic.h itself.  On some
-architectures, CPU guarantees are strong enough that blocking compiler
-optimizations already ensures the correct order of execution.  In this
-case, qemu/atomic.h will reduce stronger memory barriers to simple
-compiler barriers.
-
-Still, barrier() can be useful when writing code that can be interrupted
-by signal handlers.
-
-
-SEQUENTIALLY CONSISTENT ATOMIC ACCESS
-=====================================
-
-Most of the operations in the qemu/atomic.h header ensure *sequential
-consistency*, where "the result of any execution is the same as if the
-operations of all the processors were executed in some sequential order,
-and the operations of each individual processor appear in this sequence
-in the order specified by its program".
-
-qemu/atomic.h provides the following set of atomic read-modify-write
-operations:
-
-    void atomic_inc(ptr)
-    void atomic_dec(ptr)
-    void atomic_add(ptr, val)
-    void atomic_sub(ptr, val)
-    void atomic_and(ptr, val)
-    void atomic_or(ptr, val)
-
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_inc(ptr)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_dec(ptr)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_add(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_sub(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_and(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_or(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_xor(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_fetch_inc_nonzero(ptr)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_xchg(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_cmpxchg(ptr, old, new)
-
-all of which return the old value of *ptr.  These operations are
-polymorphic; they operate on any type that is as wide as a pointer.
-
-Similar operations return the new value of *ptr:
-
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_inc_fetch(ptr)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_dec_fetch(ptr)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_add_fetch(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_sub_fetch(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_and_fetch(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_or_fetch(ptr, val)
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_xor_fetch(ptr, val)
-
-Sequentially consistent loads and stores can be done using:
-
-    atomic_fetch_add(ptr, 0) for loads
-    atomic_xchg(ptr, val) for stores
-
-However, they are quite expensive on some platforms, notably POWER and
-Arm.  Therefore, qemu/atomic.h provides two primitives with slightly
-weaker constraints:
-
-    typeof(*ptr) atomic_mb_read(ptr)
-    void         atomic_mb_set(ptr, val)
-
-The semantics of these primitives map to Java volatile variables,
-and are strongly related to memory barriers as used in the Linux
-kernel (see below).
-
-As long as you use atomic_mb_read and atomic_mb_set, accesses cannot
-be reordered with each other, and it is also not possible to reorder
-"normal" accesses around them.
-
-However, and this is the important difference between
-atomic_mb_read/atomic_mb_set and sequential consistency, it is important
-for both threads to access the same volatile variable.  It is not the
-case that everything visible to thread A when it writes volatile field f
-becomes visible to thread B after it reads volatile field g. The store
-and load have to "match" (i.e., be performed on the same volatile
-field) to achieve the right semantics.
-
-
-These operations operate on any type that is as wide as an int or smaller.
-
-
-WEAK ATOMIC ACCESS AND MANUAL MEMORY BARRIERS
-=============================================
-
-Compared to sequentially consistent atomic access, programming with
-weaker consistency models can be considerably more complicated.
-In general, if the algorithm you are writing includes both writes
-and reads on the same side, it is generally simpler to use sequentially
-consistent primitives.
-
-When using this model, variables are accessed with:
-
-- atomic_read() and atomic_set(); these prevent the compiler from
-  optimizing accesses out of existence and creating unsolicited
-  accesses, but do not otherwise impose any ordering on loads and
-  stores: both the compiler and the processor are free to reorder
-  them.
-
-- atomic_load_acquire(), which guarantees the LOAD to appear to
-  happen, with respect to the other components of the system,
-  before all the LOAD or STORE operations specified afterwards.
-  Operations coming before atomic_load_acquire() can still be
-  reordered after it.
-
-- atomic_store_release(), which guarantees the STORE to appear to
-  happen, with respect to the other components of the system,
-  after all the LOAD or STORE operations specified afterwards.
-  Operations coming after atomic_store_release() can still be
-  reordered after it.
-
-Restrictions to the ordering of accesses can also be specified
-using the memory barrier macros: smp_rmb(), smp_wmb(), smp_mb(),
-smp_mb_acquire(), smp_mb_release(), smp_read_barrier_depends().
-
-Memory barriers control the order of references to shared memory.
-They come in six kinds:
-
-- smp_rmb() guarantees 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.
-
-  In other words, smp_rmb() puts a partial ordering on loads, but is not
-  required to have any effect on stores.
-
-- smp_wmb() guarantees 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.
-
-  In other words, smp_wmb() puts a partial ordering on stores, but is not
-  required to have any effect on loads.
-
-- smp_mb_acquire() guarantees that all the LOAD operations specified before
-  the barrier will appear to happen before all the LOAD or STORE operations
-  specified after the barrier with respect to the other components of
-  the system.
-
-- smp_mb_release() guarantees that all the STORE operations specified *after*
-  the barrier will appear to happen after all the LOAD or STORE operations
-  specified *before* the barrier with respect to the other components of
-  the system.
-
-- smp_mb() guarantees that all the LOAD and STORE operations specified
-  before the barrier will appear to happen before all the LOAD and
-  STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to the other
-  components of the system.
-
-  smp_mb() puts a partial ordering on both loads and stores.  It is
-  stronger than both a read and a write memory barrier; it implies both
-  smp_mb_acquire() and smp_mb_release(), but it also prevents STOREs
-  coming before the barrier from overtaking LOADs coming after the
-  barrier and vice versa.
-
-- smp_read_barrier_depends() is a weaker kind of read barrier.  On
-  most processors, whenever two loads are performed such that the
-  second depends on the result of the first (e.g., the first load
-  retrieves the address to which the second load will be directed),
-  the processor will guarantee that the first LOAD will appear to happen
-  before the second with respect to the other components of the system.
-  However, this is not always true---for example, it was not true on
-  Alpha processors.  Whenever this kind of access happens to shared
-  memory (that is not protected by a lock), a read barrier is needed,
-  and smp_read_barrier_depends() can be used instead of smp_rmb().
-
-  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.
-
-
-This is the set of barriers that is required *between* two atomic_read()
-and atomic_set() operations to achieve sequential consistency:
-
-                    |               2nd operation                   |
-                    |-----------------------------------------------|
-     1st operation  | (after last)   | atomic_read | atomic_set     |
-     ---------------+----------------+-------------+----------------|
-     (before first) |                | none        | smp_mb_release |
-     ---------------+----------------+-------------+----------------|
-     atomic_read    | smp_mb_acquire | smp_rmb     | **             |
-     ---------------+----------------+-------------+----------------|
-     atomic_set     | none           | smp_mb()*** | smp_wmb()      |
-     ---------------+----------------+-------------+----------------|
-
-       * Or smp_read_barrier_depends().
-
-      ** This requires a load-store barrier.  This is achieved by
-         either smp_mb_acquire() or smp_mb_release().
-
-     *** This requires a store-load barrier.  On most machines, the only
-         way to achieve this is a full barrier.
-
-
-You can see that the two possible definitions of atomic_mb_read()
-and atomic_mb_set() are the following:
-
-    1) atomic_mb_read(p)   = atomic_read(p); smp_mb_acquire()
-       atomic_mb_set(p, v) = smp_mb_release(); atomic_set(p, v); smp_mb()
-
-    2) atomic_mb_read(p)   = smp_mb() atomic_read(p); smp_mb_acquire()
-       atomic_mb_set(p, v) = smp_mb_release(); atomic_set(p, v);
-
-Usually the former is used, because smp_mb() is expensive and a program
-normally has more reads than writes.  Therefore it makes more sense to
-make atomic_mb_set() the more expensive operation.
-
-There are two common cases in which atomic_mb_read and atomic_mb_set
-generate too many memory barriers, and thus it can be useful to manually
-place barriers, or use atomic_load_acquire/atomic_store_release instead:
-
-- when a data structure has one thread that is always a writer
-  and one thread that is always a reader, manual placement of
-  memory barriers makes the write side faster.  Furthermore,
-  correctness is easy to check for in this case using the "pairing"
-  trick that is explained below:
-
-     thread 1                                thread 1
-     -------------------------               ------------------------
-     (other writes)
-     atomic_mb_set(&a, x)                    atomic_store_release(&a, x)
-     atomic_mb_set(&b, y)                    atomic_store_release(&b, y)
-
-                                       =>
-     thread 2                                thread 2
-     -------------------------               ------------------------
-     y = atomic_mb_read(&b)                  y = atomic_load_acquire(&b)
-     x = atomic_mb_read(&a)                  x = atomic_load_acquire(&a)
-     (other reads)
-
-  Note that the barrier between the stores in thread 1, and between
-  the loads in thread 2, has been optimized here to a write or a
-  read memory barrier respectively.  On some architectures, notably
-  ARMv7, smp_mb_acquire and smp_mb_release are just as expensive as
-  smp_mb, but smp_rmb and/or smp_wmb are more efficient.
-
-- sometimes, a thread is accessing many variables that are otherwise
-  unrelated to each other (for example because, apart from the current
-  thread, exactly one other thread will read or write each of these
-  variables).  In this case, it is possible to "hoist" the implicit
-  barriers provided by atomic_mb_read() and atomic_mb_set() outside
-  a loop.  For example, the above definition atomic_mb_read() gives
-  the following transformation:
-
-     n = 0;                                  n = 0;
-     for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)          =>    for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
-       n += atomic_mb_read(&a[i]);             n += atomic_read(&a[i]);
-                                             smp_mb_acquire();
-
-  Similarly, atomic_mb_set() can be transformed as follows:
-
-                                             smp_mb_release();
-     for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)          =>    for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
-       atomic_mb_set(&a[i], false);            atomic_set(&a[i], false);
-                                             smp_mb();
-
-
-  The other thread can still use atomic_mb_read()/atomic_mb_set().
-
-The two tricks can be combined.  In this case, splitting a loop in
-two lets you hoist the barriers out of the loops _and_ eliminate the
-expensive smp_mb():
-
-                                             smp_mb_release();
-     for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {        =>    for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
-       atomic_mb_set(&a[i], false);            atomic_set(&a[i], false);
-       atomic_mb_set(&b[i], false);          smb_wmb();
-     }                                       for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
-                                               atomic_set(&a[i], false);
-                                             smp_mb();
-
-
-Memory barrier pairing
-----------------------
-
-A useful rule of thumb is that memory barriers should always, or almost
-always, be paired with another barrier.  In the case of QEMU, however,
-note that the other barrier may actually be in a driver that runs in
-the guest!
-
-For the purposes of pairing, smp_read_barrier_depends() and smp_rmb()
-both count as read barriers.  A read barrier shall pair with a write
-barrier or a full barrier; a write barrier shall pair with a read
-barrier or a full barrier.  A full barrier can pair with anything.
-For example:
-
-        thread 1             thread 2
-        ===============      ===============
-        a = 1;
-        smp_wmb();
-        b = 2;               x = b;
-                             smp_rmb();
-                             y = a;
-
-Note that the "writing" thread is accessing the variables in the
-opposite order as the "reading" thread.  This is expected: stores
-before the write barrier will normally match the loads after the
-read barrier, and vice versa.  The same is true for more than 2
-access and for data dependency barriers:
-
-        thread 1             thread 2
-        ===============      ===============
-        b[2] = 1;
-        smp_wmb();
-        x->i = 2;
-        smp_wmb();
-        a = x;               x = a;
-                             smp_read_barrier_depends();
-                             y = x->i;
-                             smp_read_barrier_depends();
-                             z = b[y];
-
-smp_wmb() also pairs with atomic_mb_read() and smp_mb_acquire().
-and smp_rmb() also pairs with atomic_mb_set() and smp_mb_release().
-
-
-COMPARISON WITH LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
-============================================
-
-Here is a list of differences between Linux kernel atomic operations
-and memory barriers, and the equivalents in QEMU:
-
-- atomic operations in Linux are always on a 32-bit int type and
-  use a boxed atomic_t type; atomic operations in QEMU are polymorphic
-  and use normal C types.
-
-- Originally, atomic_read and atomic_set in Linux gave no guarantee
-  at all. Linux 4.1 updated them to implement volatile
-  semantics via ACCESS_ONCE (or the more recent READ/WRITE_ONCE).
-
-  QEMU's atomic_read/set implement, if the compiler supports it, C11
-  atomic relaxed semantics, and volatile semantics otherwise.
-  Both semantics prevent the compiler from doing certain transformations;
-  the difference is that atomic accesses are guaranteed to be atomic,
-  while volatile accesses aren't. Thus, in the volatile case we just cross
-  our fingers hoping that the compiler will generate atomic accesses,
-  since we assume the variables passed are machine-word sized and
-  properly aligned.
-  No barriers are implied by atomic_read/set in either Linux or QEMU.
-
-- atomic read-modify-write operations in Linux are of three kinds:
-
-         atomic_OP          returns void
-         atomic_OP_return   returns new value of the variable
-         atomic_fetch_OP    returns the old value of the variable
-         atomic_cmpxchg     returns the old value of the variable
-
-  In QEMU, the second kind does not exist.  Currently Linux has
-  atomic_fetch_or only.  QEMU provides and, or, inc, dec, add, sub.
-
-- different atomic read-modify-write operations in Linux imply
-  a different set of memory barriers; in QEMU, all of them enforce
-  sequential consistency, which means they imply full memory barriers
-  before and after the operation.
-
-- Linux does not have an equivalent of atomic_mb_set().  In particular,
-  note that smp_store_mb() is a little weaker than atomic_mb_set().
-  atomic_mb_read() compiles to the same instructions as Linux's
-  smp_load_acquire(), but this should be treated as an implementation
-  detail.
-
-SOURCES
-=======
-
-* Documentation/memory-barriers.txt from the Linux kernel
-
-* "The JSR-133 Cookbook for Compiler Writers", available at
-  http://g.oswego.edu/dl/jmm/cookbook.html
diff --git a/docs/devel/index.rst b/docs/devel/index.rst
index b734ba4..a9e1200 100644
--- a/docs/devel/index.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/index.rst
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
    loads-stores
    memory
    migration
+   atomics
    stable-process
    testing
    decodetree