Skip to content

L
linux-davinci-2.6.23
Commit 670bd95e authored by David Howells's avatar David Howells Committed by Linus Torvalds
Browse files
Options

[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document 

From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>

Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out
with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan
Stern.

The following changes were made:

 (*) One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory
     barriers was wrong.

 (*) The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is
     a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier.  This isn't entirely
     true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both.

 (*) The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the
     loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the
     opposite order to the stores around the write barrier.

 (*) Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to
     the stores.

 (*) Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences"
     section to make them clearer.  Added a couple of diagrams to make it more
     clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier.

 (*) Added a section on memory speculation.

 (*) Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory
     barriers.  They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on.  This may be
     worthy of further documentation later.

 (*) Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a
     full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Acked-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
parent d90d2c38
Show whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
Showing with 270 additions and 78 deletions
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
View file @ 670bd95e
...@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Contents: ...@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Contents:
- Control dependencies. - Control dependencies.
- SMP barrier pairing. - SMP barrier pairing.
- Examples of memory barrier sequences. - Examples of memory barrier sequences.
- Read memory barriers vs load speculation.
(*) Explicit kernel barriers. (*) Explicit kernel barriers.
...@@ -248,7 +249,7 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed: ...@@ -248,7 +249,7 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
we may get either of: we may get either of:
STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A; STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A;
STORE *A = Y; STORE *A = Y = X;
========================= =========================
...@@ -344,9 +345,12 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties: ...@@ -344,9 +345,12 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
(4) General memory barriers. (4) General memory barriers.
A general memory barrier is a combination of both a read memory barrier A general memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the LOAD and STORE
and a write memory barrier. It is a partial ordering over both loads and operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all
stores. the LOAD and STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to
the other components of the system.
A general memory barrier is a partial ordering over both loads and stores.
General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so
can substitute for either. can substitute for either.
...@@ -546,9 +550,9 @@ write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable: ...@@ -546,9 +550,9 @@ write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
=============== =============== =============== ===============
a = 1; a = 1;
<write barrier> <write barrier>
b = 2; x = a; b = 2; x = b;
<read barrier> <read barrier>
y = b; y = a;
Or: Or:
...@@ -563,6 +567,18 @@ Or: ...@@ -563,6 +567,18 @@ Or:
Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
the "weaker" type. the "weaker" type.
[!] Note that the stores before the write barrier would normally be expected to
match the loads after the read barrier or data dependency barrier, and vice
versa:
CPU 1 CPU 2
=============== ===============
a = 1; }---- --->{ v = c
b = 2; } \ / { w = d
<write barrier> \ <read barrier>
c = 3; } / \ { x = a;
d = 4; }---- --->{ y = b;
EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
...@@ -600,8 +616,8 @@ STORE B, STORE C } all occuring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E ...@@ -600,8 +616,8 @@ STORE B, STORE C } all occuring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
| | +------+ | | +------+
+-------+ : : +-------+ : :
| |
| Sequence in which stores committed to memory system | Sequence in which stores are committed to the
| by CPU 1 | memory system by CPU 1
V V
...@@ -683,14 +699,12 @@ then the following will occur: ...@@ -683,14 +699,12 @@ then the following will occur:
| : : | | | : : | |
| : : | CPU 2 | | : : | CPU 2 |
| +-------+ | | | +-------+ | |
\ | X->9 |------>| | | | X->9 |------>| |
\ +-------+ | | | +-------+ | |
----->| B->2 | | | Makes sure all effects ---> \ ddddddddddddddddd | |
+-------+ | | prior to the store of C \ +-------+ | |
Makes sure all effects ---> ddddddddddddddddd | | are perceptible to ----->| B->2 |------>| |
prior to the store of C +-------+ | | subsequent loads +-------+ | |
are perceptible to | B->2 |------>| |
successive loads +-------+ | |
: : +-------+ : : +-------+
...@@ -699,73 +713,239 @@ following sequence of events: ...@@ -699,73 +713,239 @@ following sequence of events:
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 1 CPU 2
======================= ======================= ======================= =======================
{ A = 0, B = 9 }
STORE A=1 STORE A=1
STORE B=2
STORE C=3
<write barrier> <write barrier>
STORE D=4 STORE B=2
STORE E=5
LOAD A
LOAD B LOAD B
LOAD C LOAD A
LOAD D
LOAD E
Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in 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: some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
+-------+ : : +-------+ : : : :
| | +------+ | | +------+ +-------+
| |------>| C=3 | } | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
| | : +------+ } | | +------+ \ +-------+
| | : | A=1 | } | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
| | : +------+ } | | +------+ | +-------+
| CPU 1 | : | B=2 | }--- | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
| | +------+ } \ | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
| | wwwwwwwwwwwww} \ +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
| | +------+ } \ : : +-------+ ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
| | : | E=5 | } \ +-------+ | | | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
| | : +------+ } \ { | C->3 |------>| | | | A->0 |------>| |
| |------>| D=4 | } \ { +-------+ : | | | +-------+ | |
| | +------+ \ { | E->5 | : | | | : : +-------+
+-------+ : : \ { +-------+ : | | \ : :
Transfer -->{ | A->1 | : | CPU 2 | \ +-------+
from CPU 1 { +-------+ : | | ---->| A->1 |
to CPU 2 { | D->4 | : | | +-------+
{ +-------+ : | | : :
{ | B->2 |------>| |
+-------+ | |
If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of E and the
load of A on CPU 2:
CPU 1 CPU 2
======================= =======================
{ A = 0, B = 9 }
STORE A=1
<write barrier>
STORE B=2
LOAD B
<read barrier>
LOAD A
then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be perceived correctly by CPU
2:
+-------+ : : : :
| | +------+ +-------+
| |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
| | +------+ \ +-------+
| CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
| | +------+ | +-------+
| |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
| | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
+-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
---------->| B->2 |------>| |
| +-------+ | CPU 2 |
| : : | |
| : : | |
At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | |
prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| |
to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | |
: : +-------+ : : +-------+
If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of C and the To illustrate this more completely, consider what could happen if the code
load of D on CPU 2, then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be contained a load of A either side of the read barrier:
perceived correctly by CPU 2.
+-------+ : : CPU 1 CPU 2
| | +------+ ======================= =======================
| |------>| C=3 | } { A = 0, B = 9 }
| | : +------+ } STORE A=1
| | : | A=1 | }--- <write barrier>
| | : +------+ } \ STORE B=2
| CPU 1 | : | B=2 | } \ LOAD B
| | +------+ \ LOAD A [first load of A]
| | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ <read barrier>
| | +------+ \ : : +-------+ LOAD A [second load of A]
| | : | E=5 | } \ +-------+ | |
| | : +------+ }--- \ { | C->3 |------>| | Even though the two loads of A both occur after the load of B, they may both
| |------>| D=4 | } \ \ { +-------+ : | | come up with different values:
| | +------+ \ -->{ | B->2 | : | |
+-------+ : : \ { +-------+ : | | +-------+ : : : :
\ { | A->1 | : | CPU 2 | | | +------+ +-------+
\ +-------+ | | | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
| | +------+ \ +-------+
| CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
| | +------+ | +-------+
| |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
| | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
+-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
---------->| B->2 |------>| |
| +-------+ | CPU 2 |
| : : | |
| : : | |
| +-------+ | |
| | A->0 |------>| 1st |
| +-------+ | |
At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | | At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | | barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | |
prior to the storage of C \ { | E->5 | : | | prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| 2nd |
to be perceptible to CPU 2 -->{ +-------+ : | | to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | |
{ | D->4 |------>| | : : +-------+
But it may be that the update to A from CPU 1 becomes perceptible to CPU 2
before the read barrier completes anyway:
+-------+ : : : :
| | +------+ +-------+
| |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
| | +------+ \ +-------+
| CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
| | +------+ | +-------+
| |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
| | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
+-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
---------->| B->2 |------>| |
| +-------+ | CPU 2 |
| : : | |
\ : : | |
\ +-------+ | |
---->| A->1 |------>| 1st |
+-------+ | |
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
+-------+ | |
| A->1 |------>| 2nd |
+-------+ | |
: : +-------+
The guarantee is that the second load will always come up with A == 1 if the
load of B came up with B == 2. No such guarantee exists for the first load of
A; that may come up with either A == 0 or A == 1.
READ MEMORY BARRIERS VS LOAD SPECULATION
----------------------------------------
Many CPUs speculate with loads: that is they see that they will need to load an
item from memory, and they find a time where they're not using the bus for any
other loads, and so do the load in advance - even though they haven't actually
got to that point in the instruction execution flow yet. This permits the
actual load instruction to potentially complete immediately because the CPU
already has the value to hand.
It may turn out that the CPU didn't actually need the value - perhaps because a
branch circumvented the load - in which case it can discard the value or just
cache it for later use.
Consider:
CPU 1 CPU 2
======================= =======================
LOAD B
DIVIDE } Divide instructions generally
DIVIDE } take a long time to perform
LOAD A
Which might appear as this:
: : +-------+
+-------+ | | +-------+ | |
--->| B->2 |------>| |
+-------+ | CPU 2 |
: :DIVIDE | |
+-------+ | |
The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
LOAD of A : : ~ | |
: :DIVIDE | |
: : ~ | |
Once the divisions are complete --> : : ~-->| |
the CPU can then perform the : : | |
LOAD with immediate effect : : +-------+
Placing a read barrier or a data dependency barrier just before the second
load:
CPU 1 CPU 2
======================= =======================
LOAD B
DIVIDE
DIVIDE
<read barrier>
LOAD A
will force any value speculatively obtained to be reconsidered to an extent
dependent on the type of barrier used. If there was no change made to the
speculated memory location, then the speculated value will just be used:
: : +-------+
+-------+ | |
--->| B->2 |------>| |
+-------+ | CPU 2 |
: :DIVIDE | |
+-------+ | |
The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
LOAD of A : : ~ | |
: :DIVIDE | |
: : ~ | |
: : ~ | |
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~ | |
: : ~ | |
: : ~-->| |
: : | |
: : +-------+
but if there was an update or an invalidation from another CPU pending, then
the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded:
: : +-------+ : : +-------+
+-------+ | |
--->| B->2 |------>| |
+-------+ | CPU 2 |
: :DIVIDE | |
+-------+ | |
The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
LOAD of A : : ~ | |
: :DIVIDE | |
: : ~ | |
: : ~ | |
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
+-------+ | |
The speculation is discarded ---> --->| A->1 |------>| |
and an updated value is +-------+ | |
retrieved : : +-------+
======================== ========================
...@@ -901,7 +1081,7 @@ IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS ...@@ -901,7 +1081,7 @@ IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
=============================== ===============================
Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst
which are locking, scheduling and memory allocation functions. which are locking and scheduling functions.
This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may
provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside
...@@ -966,6 +1146,20 @@ equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not. ...@@ -966,6 +1146,20 @@ equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not.
barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may
seep into the inside of the critical section. seep into the inside of the critical section.
A LOCK followed by an UNLOCK may not be assumed to be full memory barrier
because it is possible for an access preceding the LOCK to happen after the
LOCK, and an access following the UNLOCK to happen before the UNLOCK, and the
two accesses can themselves then cross:
*A = a;
LOCK
UNLOCK
*B = b;
may occur as:
LOCK, STORE *B, STORE *A, UNLOCK
Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled 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 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 anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined
...@@ -1016,8 +1210,6 @@ Other functions that imply barriers: ...@@ -1016,8 +1210,6 @@ Other functions that imply barriers:
(*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers. (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
(*) Memory allocation and release functions imply full memory barriers.
================================= =================================
INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment