redonkable
/
remarkable-linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

[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: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
wifi-calibration
David Howells 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00 committed by Linus Torvalds
parent d90d2c385d
commit 670bd95e04
1 changed files with 268 additions and 76 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

344
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
View File

@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Contents:
- Control dependencies.
- SMP barrier pairing.
- Examples of memory barrier sequences.
- Read memory barriers vs load speculation.
(*) Explicit kernel barriers.
@ -248,7 +249,7 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
we may get either of:
STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A;
STORE *A = Y;
STORE *A = Y = X;
=========================
@ -344,9 +345,12 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
(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.
A general memory barrier gives a guarantee 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.
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
can substitute for either.
@ -546,9 +550,9 @@ write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
=============== ===============
a = 1;
<write barrier>
b = 2; x = a;
b = 2; x = b;
<read barrier>
y = b;
y = a;
Or:
@ -563,6 +567,18 @@ Or:
Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
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
------------------------------------
@ -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
| by CPU 1
| Sequence in which stores are committed to the
| memory system by CPU 1
V
@ -683,14 +699,12 @@ then the following will occur:
| : : | |
| : : | CPU 2 |
| +-------+ | |
\ | X->9 |------>| |
\ +-------+ | |
----->| B->2 | | |
+-------+ | |
Makes sure all effects ---> ddddddddddddddddd | |
prior to the store of C +-------+ | |
are perceptible to | B->2 |------>| |
successive loads +-------+ | |
| | X->9 |------>| |
| +-------+ | |
Makes sure all effects ---> \ ddddddddddddddddd | |
prior to the store of C \ +-------+ | |
are perceptible to ----->| B->2 |------>| |
subsequent loads +-------+ | |
: : +-------+
@ -699,73 +713,239 @@ following sequence of events:
CPU 1 CPU 2
======================= =======================
{ A = 0, B = 9 }
STORE A=1
STORE B=2
STORE C=3
<write barrier>
STORE D=4
STORE E=5
LOAD A
STORE B=2
LOAD B
LOAD C
LOAD D
LOAD E
LOAD A
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 |------>| |
+-------+ | |
: : +-------+
+-------+ : : : :
| | +------+ +-------+
| |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
| | +------+ \ +-------+
| CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
| | +------+ | +-------+
| |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
| | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
+-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
---------->| B->2 |------>| |
| +-------+ | CPU 2 |
| | A->0 |------>| |
| +-------+ | |
| : : +-------+
\ : :
\ +-------+
---->| A->1 |
+-------+
: :
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.
If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of E and the
load of A on 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 |------>| |
+-------+ | |
: : +-------+
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 +-------+ | |
: : +-------+
To illustrate this more completely, consider what could happen if the code
contained a load of A either side of the read barrier:
CPU 1 CPU 2
======================= =======================
{ A = 0, B = 9 }
STORE A=1
<write barrier>
STORE B=2
LOAD B
LOAD A [first load of A]
<read barrier>
LOAD A [second load of A]
Even though the two loads of A both occur after the load of B, they may both
come up with different values:
+-------+ : : : :
| | +------+ +-------+
| |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
| | +------+ \ +-------+
| CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
| | +------+ | +-------+
| |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
| | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
+-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
---------->| B->2 |------>| |
| +-------+ | CPU 2 |
| : : | |
| : : | |
| +-------+ | |
| | A->0 |------>| 1st |
| +-------+ | |
At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | |
prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| 2nd |
to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | |
: : +-------+
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
===============================
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
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.
barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may
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
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
@ -1016,8 +1210,6 @@ 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