]>
Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
108b42b4 DH |
1 | ============================ |
2 | LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS | |
3 | ============================ | |
4 | ||
5 | By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> | |
90fddabf | 6 | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
108b42b4 DH |
7 | |
8 | Contents: | |
9 | ||
10 | (*) Abstract memory access model. | |
11 | ||
12 | - Device operations. | |
13 | - Guarantees. | |
14 | ||
15 | (*) What are memory barriers? | |
16 | ||
17 | - Varieties of memory barrier. | |
18 | - What may not be assumed about memory barriers? | |
19 | - Data dependency barriers. | |
20 | - Control dependencies. | |
21 | - SMP barrier pairing. | |
22 | - Examples of memory barrier sequences. | |
670bd95e | 23 | - Read memory barriers vs load speculation. |
241e6663 | 24 | - Transitivity |
108b42b4 DH |
25 | |
26 | (*) Explicit kernel barriers. | |
27 | ||
28 | - Compiler barrier. | |
81fc6323 | 29 | - CPU memory barriers. |
108b42b4 DH |
30 | - MMIO write barrier. |
31 | ||
32 | (*) Implicit kernel memory barriers. | |
33 | ||
34 | - Locking functions. | |
35 | - Interrupt disabling functions. | |
50fa610a | 36 | - Sleep and wake-up functions. |
108b42b4 DH |
37 | - Miscellaneous functions. |
38 | ||
39 | (*) Inter-CPU locking barrier effects. | |
40 | ||
41 | - Locks vs memory accesses. | |
42 | - Locks vs I/O accesses. | |
43 | ||
44 | (*) Where are memory barriers needed? | |
45 | ||
46 | - Interprocessor interaction. | |
47 | - Atomic operations. | |
48 | - Accessing devices. | |
49 | - Interrupts. | |
50 | ||
51 | (*) Kernel I/O barrier effects. | |
52 | ||
53 | (*) Assumed minimum execution ordering model. | |
54 | ||
55 | (*) The effects of the cpu cache. | |
56 | ||
57 | - Cache coherency. | |
58 | - Cache coherency vs DMA. | |
59 | - Cache coherency vs MMIO. | |
60 | ||
61 | (*) The things CPUs get up to. | |
62 | ||
63 | - And then there's the Alpha. | |
64 | ||
90fddabf DH |
65 | (*) Example uses. |
66 | ||
67 | - Circular buffers. | |
68 | ||
108b42b4 DH |
69 | (*) References. |
70 | ||
71 | ||
72 | ============================ | |
73 | ABSTRACT MEMORY ACCESS MODEL | |
74 | ============================ | |
75 | ||
76 | Consider the following abstract model of the system: | |
77 | ||
78 | : : | |
79 | : : | |
80 | : : | |
81 | +-------+ : +--------+ : +-------+ | |
82 | | | : | | : | | | |
83 | | | : | | : | | | |
84 | | CPU 1 |<----->| Memory |<----->| CPU 2 | | |
85 | | | : | | : | | | |
86 | | | : | | : | | | |
87 | +-------+ : +--------+ : +-------+ | |
88 | ^ : ^ : ^ | |
89 | | : | : | | |
90 | | : | : | | |
91 | | : v : | | |
92 | | : +--------+ : | | |
93 | | : | | : | | |
94 | | : | | : | | |
95 | +---------->| Device |<----------+ | |
96 | : | | : | |
97 | : | | : | |
98 | : +--------+ : | |
99 | : : | |
100 | ||
101 | Each CPU executes a program that generates memory access operations. In the | |
102 | abstract CPU, memory operation ordering is very relaxed, and a CPU may actually | |
103 | perform the memory operations in any order it likes, provided program causality | |
104 | appears to be maintained. Similarly, the compiler may also arrange the | |
105 | instructions it emits in any order it likes, provided it doesn't affect the | |
106 | apparent operation of the program. | |
107 | ||
108 | So in the above diagram, the effects of the memory operations performed by a | |
109 | CPU are perceived by the rest of the system as the operations cross the | |
110 | interface between the CPU and rest of the system (the dotted lines). | |
111 | ||
112 | ||
113 | For example, consider the following sequence of events: | |
114 | ||
115 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
116 | =============== =============== | |
117 | { A == 1; B == 2 } | |
615cc2c9 AD |
118 | A = 3; x = B; |
119 | B = 4; y = A; | |
108b42b4 DH |
120 | |
121 | The set of accesses as seen by the memory system in the middle can be arranged | |
122 | in 24 different combinations: | |
123 | ||
124 | STORE A=3, STORE B=4, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->4 | |
125 | STORE A=3, STORE B=4, y=LOAD B->4, x=LOAD A->3 | |
126 | STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4, y=LOAD B->4 | |
127 | STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4 | |
128 | STORE A=3, y=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4, x=LOAD A->3 | |
129 | STORE A=3, y=LOAD B->2, x=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4 | |
130 | STORE B=4, STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->4 | |
131 | STORE B=4, ... | |
132 | ... | |
133 | ||
134 | and can thus result in four different combinations of values: | |
135 | ||
136 | x == 1, y == 2 | |
137 | x == 1, y == 4 | |
138 | x == 3, y == 2 | |
139 | x == 3, y == 4 | |
140 | ||
141 | ||
142 | Furthermore, the stores committed by a CPU to the memory system may not be | |
143 | perceived by the loads made by another CPU in the same order as the stores were | |
144 | committed. | |
145 | ||
146 | ||
147 | As a further example, consider this sequence of events: | |
148 | ||
149 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
150 | =============== =============== | |
151 | { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C } | |
152 | B = 4; Q = P; | |
153 | P = &B D = *Q; | |
154 | ||
155 | There is an obvious data dependency here, as the value loaded into D depends on | |
156 | the address retrieved from P by CPU 2. At the end of the sequence, any of the | |
157 | following results are possible: | |
158 | ||
159 | (Q == &A) and (D == 1) | |
160 | (Q == &B) and (D == 2) | |
161 | (Q == &B) and (D == 4) | |
162 | ||
163 | Note that CPU 2 will never try and load C into D because the CPU will load P | |
164 | into Q before issuing the load of *Q. | |
165 | ||
166 | ||
167 | DEVICE OPERATIONS | |
168 | ----------------- | |
169 | ||
170 | Some devices present their control interfaces as collections of memory | |
171 | locations, but the order in which the control registers are accessed is very | |
172 | important. For instance, imagine an ethernet card with a set of internal | |
173 | registers that are accessed through an address port register (A) and a data | |
174 | port register (D). To read internal register 5, the following code might then | |
175 | be used: | |
176 | ||
177 | *A = 5; | |
178 | x = *D; | |
179 | ||
180 | but this might show up as either of the following two sequences: | |
181 | ||
182 | STORE *A = 5, x = LOAD *D | |
183 | x = LOAD *D, STORE *A = 5 | |
184 | ||
185 | the second of which will almost certainly result in a malfunction, since it set | |
186 | the address _after_ attempting to read the register. | |
187 | ||
188 | ||
189 | GUARANTEES | |
190 | ---------- | |
191 | ||
192 | There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU: | |
193 | ||
194 | (*) On any given CPU, dependent memory accesses will be issued in order, with | |
195 | respect to itself. This means that for: | |
196 | ||
2ecf8101 | 197 | ACCESS_ONCE(Q) = P; smp_read_barrier_depends(); D = ACCESS_ONCE(*Q); |
108b42b4 DH |
198 | |
199 | the CPU will issue the following memory operations: | |
200 | ||
201 | Q = LOAD P, D = LOAD *Q | |
202 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
203 | and always in that order. On most systems, smp_read_barrier_depends() |
204 | does nothing, but it is required for DEC Alpha. The ACCESS_ONCE() | |
205 | is required to prevent compiler mischief. Please note that you | |
206 | should normally use something like rcu_dereference() instead of | |
207 | open-coding smp_read_barrier_depends(). | |
108b42b4 DH |
208 | |
209 | (*) Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will appear to be | |
210 | ordered within that CPU. This means that for: | |
211 | ||
2ecf8101 | 212 | a = ACCESS_ONCE(*X); ACCESS_ONCE(*X) = b; |
108b42b4 DH |
213 | |
214 | the CPU will only issue the following sequence of memory operations: | |
215 | ||
216 | a = LOAD *X, STORE *X = b | |
217 | ||
218 | And for: | |
219 | ||
2ecf8101 | 220 | ACCESS_ONCE(*X) = c; d = ACCESS_ONCE(*X); |
108b42b4 DH |
221 | |
222 | the CPU will only issue: | |
223 | ||
224 | STORE *X = c, d = LOAD *X | |
225 | ||
fa00e7e1 | 226 | (Loads and stores overlap if they are targeted at overlapping pieces of |
108b42b4 DH |
227 | memory). |
228 | ||
229 | And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed: | |
230 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
231 | (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that the compiler will do what you want with |
232 | memory references that are not protected by ACCESS_ONCE(). Without | |
233 | ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler is within its rights to do all sorts | |
692118da PM |
234 | of "creative" transformations, which are covered in the Compiler |
235 | Barrier section. | |
2ecf8101 | 236 | |
108b42b4 DH |
237 | (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued |
238 | in the order given. This means that for: | |
239 | ||
240 | X = *A; Y = *B; *D = Z; | |
241 | ||
242 | we may get any of the following sequences: | |
243 | ||
244 | X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z | |
245 | X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B | |
246 | Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z | |
247 | Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A | |
248 | STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B | |
249 | STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A | |
250 | ||
251 | (*) It _must_ be assumed that overlapping memory accesses may be merged or | |
252 | discarded. This means that for: | |
253 | ||
254 | X = *A; Y = *(A + 4); | |
255 | ||
256 | we may get any one of the following sequences: | |
257 | ||
258 | X = LOAD *A; Y = LOAD *(A + 4); | |
259 | Y = LOAD *(A + 4); X = LOAD *A; | |
260 | {X, Y} = LOAD {*A, *(A + 4) }; | |
261 | ||
262 | And for: | |
263 | ||
f191eec5 | 264 | *A = X; *(A + 4) = Y; |
108b42b4 | 265 | |
f191eec5 | 266 | we may get any of: |
108b42b4 | 267 | |
f191eec5 PM |
268 | STORE *A = X; STORE *(A + 4) = Y; |
269 | STORE *(A + 4) = Y; STORE *A = X; | |
270 | STORE {*A, *(A + 4) } = {X, Y}; | |
108b42b4 DH |
271 | |
272 | ||
273 | ========================= | |
274 | WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS? | |
275 | ========================= | |
276 | ||
277 | As can be seen above, independent memory operations are effectively performed | |
278 | in random order, but this can be a problem for CPU-CPU interaction and for I/O. | |
279 | What is required is some way of intervening to instruct the compiler and the | |
280 | CPU to restrict the order. | |
281 | ||
282 | Memory barriers are such interventions. They impose a perceived partial | |
2b94895b DH |
283 | ordering over the memory operations on either side of the barrier. |
284 | ||
285 | Such enforcement is important because the CPUs and other devices in a system | |
81fc6323 | 286 | can use a variety of tricks to improve performance, including reordering, |
2b94895b DH |
287 | deferral and combination of memory operations; speculative loads; speculative |
288 | branch prediction and various types of caching. Memory barriers are used to | |
289 | override or suppress these tricks, allowing the code to sanely control the | |
290 | interaction of multiple CPUs and/or devices. | |
108b42b4 DH |
291 | |
292 | ||
293 | VARIETIES OF MEMORY BARRIER | |
294 | --------------------------- | |
295 | ||
296 | Memory barriers come in four basic varieties: | |
297 | ||
298 | (1) Write (or store) memory barriers. | |
299 | ||
300 | A write memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the STORE operations | |
301 | specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all the STORE | |
302 | operations specified after the barrier with respect to the other | |
303 | components of the system. | |
304 | ||
305 | A write barrier is a partial ordering on stores only; it is not required | |
306 | to have any effect on loads. | |
307 | ||
6bc39274 | 308 | A CPU can be viewed as committing a sequence of store operations to the |
108b42b4 DH |
309 | memory system as time progresses. All stores before a write barrier will |
310 | occur in the sequence _before_ all the stores after the write barrier. | |
311 | ||
312 | [!] Note that write barriers should normally be paired with read or data | |
313 | dependency barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection. | |
314 | ||
315 | ||
316 | (2) Data dependency barriers. | |
317 | ||
318 | A data dependency barrier is a weaker form of read barrier. In the case | |
319 | where two loads are performed such that the second depends on the result | |
320 | of the first (eg: the first load retrieves the address to which the second | |
321 | load will be directed), a data dependency barrier would be required to | |
322 | make sure that the target of the second load is updated before the address | |
323 | obtained by the first load is accessed. | |
324 | ||
325 | A data dependency barrier is a partial ordering on interdependent loads | |
326 | only; it is not required to have any effect on stores, independent loads | |
327 | or overlapping loads. | |
328 | ||
329 | As mentioned in (1), the other CPUs in the system can be viewed as | |
330 | committing sequences of stores to the memory system that the CPU being | |
331 | considered can then perceive. A data dependency barrier issued by the CPU | |
332 | under consideration guarantees that for any load preceding it, if that | |
333 | load touches one of a sequence of stores from another CPU, then by the | |
334 | time the barrier completes, the effects of all the stores prior to that | |
335 | touched by the load will be perceptible to any loads issued after the data | |
336 | dependency barrier. | |
337 | ||
338 | See the "Examples of memory barrier sequences" subsection for diagrams | |
339 | showing the ordering constraints. | |
340 | ||
341 | [!] Note that the first load really has to have a _data_ dependency and | |
342 | not a control dependency. If the address for the second load is dependent | |
343 | on the first load, but the dependency is through a conditional rather than | |
344 | actually loading the address itself, then it's a _control_ dependency and | |
345 | a full read barrier or better is required. See the "Control dependencies" | |
346 | subsection for more information. | |
347 | ||
348 | [!] Note that data dependency barriers should normally be paired with | |
349 | write barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection. | |
350 | ||
351 | ||
352 | (3) Read (or load) memory barriers. | |
353 | ||
354 | A read barrier is a data dependency barrier plus a guarantee that all the | |
355 | LOAD operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before | |
356 | all the LOAD operations specified after the barrier with respect to the | |
357 | other components of the system. | |
358 | ||
359 | A read barrier is a partial ordering on loads only; it is not required to | |
360 | have any effect on stores. | |
361 | ||
362 | Read memory barriers imply data dependency barriers, and so can substitute | |
363 | for them. | |
364 | ||
365 | [!] Note that read barriers should normally be paired with write barriers; | |
366 | see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection. | |
367 | ||
368 | ||
369 | (4) General memory barriers. | |
370 | ||
670bd95e DH |
371 | A general memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the LOAD and STORE |
372 | operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all | |
373 | the LOAD and STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to | |
374 | the other components of the system. | |
375 | ||
376 | A general memory barrier is a partial ordering over both loads and stores. | |
108b42b4 DH |
377 | |
378 | General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so | |
379 | can substitute for either. | |
380 | ||
381 | ||
382 | And a couple of implicit varieties: | |
383 | ||
2e4f5382 | 384 | (5) ACQUIRE operations. |
108b42b4 DH |
385 | |
386 | This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
387 | operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen after the |
388 | ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of the system. | |
389 | ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and smp_load_acquire() | |
390 | operations. | |
108b42b4 | 391 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
392 | Memory operations that occur before an ACQUIRE operation may appear to |
393 | happen after it completes. | |
108b42b4 | 394 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
395 | An ACQUIRE operation should almost always be paired with a RELEASE |
396 | operation. | |
108b42b4 DH |
397 | |
398 | ||
2e4f5382 | 399 | (6) RELEASE operations. |
108b42b4 DH |
400 | |
401 | This also acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
402 | memory operations before the RELEASE operation will appear to happen |
403 | before the RELEASE operation with respect to the other components of the | |
404 | system. RELEASE operations include UNLOCK operations and | |
405 | smp_store_release() operations. | |
108b42b4 | 406 | |
2e4f5382 | 407 | Memory operations that occur after a RELEASE operation may appear to |
108b42b4 DH |
408 | happen before it completes. |
409 | ||
2e4f5382 PZ |
410 | The use of ACQUIRE and RELEASE operations generally precludes the need |
411 | for other sorts of memory barrier (but note the exceptions mentioned in | |
412 | the subsection "MMIO write barrier"). In addition, a RELEASE+ACQUIRE | |
413 | pair is -not- guaranteed to act as a full memory barrier. However, after | |
414 | an ACQUIRE on a given variable, all memory accesses preceding any prior | |
415 | RELEASE on that same variable are guaranteed to be visible. In other | |
416 | words, within a given variable's critical section, all accesses of all | |
417 | previous critical sections for that variable are guaranteed to have | |
418 | completed. | |
17eb88e0 | 419 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
420 | This means that ACQUIRE acts as a minimal "acquire" operation and |
421 | RELEASE acts as a minimal "release" operation. | |
108b42b4 DH |
422 | |
423 | ||
424 | Memory barriers are only required where there's a possibility of interaction | |
425 | between two CPUs or between a CPU and a device. If it can be guaranteed that | |
426 | there won't be any such interaction in any particular piece of code, then | |
427 | memory barriers are unnecessary in that piece of code. | |
428 | ||
429 | ||
430 | Note that these are the _minimum_ guarantees. Different architectures may give | |
431 | more substantial guarantees, but they may _not_ be relied upon outside of arch | |
432 | specific code. | |
433 | ||
434 | ||
435 | WHAT MAY NOT BE ASSUMED ABOUT MEMORY BARRIERS? | |
436 | ---------------------------------------------- | |
437 | ||
438 | There are certain things that the Linux kernel memory barriers do not guarantee: | |
439 | ||
440 | (*) There is no guarantee that any of the memory accesses specified before a | |
441 | memory barrier will be _complete_ by the completion of a memory barrier | |
442 | instruction; the barrier can be considered to draw a line in that CPU's | |
443 | access queue that accesses of the appropriate type may not cross. | |
444 | ||
445 | (*) There is no guarantee that issuing a memory barrier on one CPU will have | |
446 | any direct effect on another CPU or any other hardware in the system. The | |
447 | indirect effect will be the order in which the second CPU sees the effects | |
448 | of the first CPU's accesses occur, but see the next point: | |
449 | ||
6bc39274 | 450 | (*) There is no guarantee that a CPU will see the correct order of effects |
108b42b4 DH |
451 | from a second CPU's accesses, even _if_ the second CPU uses a memory |
452 | barrier, unless the first CPU _also_ uses a matching memory barrier (see | |
453 | the subsection on "SMP Barrier Pairing"). | |
454 | ||
455 | (*) There is no guarantee that some intervening piece of off-the-CPU | |
456 | hardware[*] will not reorder the memory accesses. CPU cache coherency | |
457 | mechanisms should propagate the indirect effects of a memory barrier | |
458 | between CPUs, but might not do so in order. | |
459 | ||
460 | [*] For information on bus mastering DMA and coherency please read: | |
461 | ||
4b5ff469 | 462 | Documentation/PCI/pci.txt |
395cf969 | 463 | Documentation/DMA-API-HOWTO.txt |
108b42b4 DH |
464 | Documentation/DMA-API.txt |
465 | ||
466 | ||
467 | DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS | |
468 | ------------------------ | |
469 | ||
470 | The usage requirements of data dependency barriers are a little subtle, and | |
471 | it's not always obvious that they're needed. To illustrate, consider the | |
472 | following sequence of events: | |
473 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
474 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
475 | =============== =============== | |
108b42b4 DH |
476 | { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C } |
477 | B = 4; | |
478 | <write barrier> | |
2ecf8101 PM |
479 | ACCESS_ONCE(P) = &B |
480 | Q = ACCESS_ONCE(P); | |
481 | D = *Q; | |
108b42b4 DH |
482 | |
483 | There's a clear data dependency here, and it would seem that by the end of the | |
484 | sequence, Q must be either &A or &B, and that: | |
485 | ||
486 | (Q == &A) implies (D == 1) | |
487 | (Q == &B) implies (D == 4) | |
488 | ||
81fc6323 | 489 | But! CPU 2's perception of P may be updated _before_ its perception of B, thus |
108b42b4 DH |
490 | leading to the following situation: |
491 | ||
492 | (Q == &B) and (D == 2) ???? | |
493 | ||
494 | Whilst this may seem like a failure of coherency or causality maintenance, it | |
495 | isn't, and this behaviour can be observed on certain real CPUs (such as the DEC | |
496 | Alpha). | |
497 | ||
2b94895b DH |
498 | To deal with this, a data dependency barrier or better must be inserted |
499 | between the address load and the data load: | |
108b42b4 | 500 | |
2ecf8101 PM |
501 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
502 | =============== =============== | |
108b42b4 DH |
503 | { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C } |
504 | B = 4; | |
505 | <write barrier> | |
2ecf8101 PM |
506 | ACCESS_ONCE(P) = &B |
507 | Q = ACCESS_ONCE(P); | |
508 | <data dependency barrier> | |
509 | D = *Q; | |
108b42b4 DH |
510 | |
511 | This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the | |
512 | third possibility from arising. | |
513 | ||
514 | [!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on | |
515 | machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes | |
516 | even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache | |
517 | lines. The pointer P might be stored in an odd-numbered cache line, and the | |
518 | variable B might be stored in an even-numbered cache line. Then, if the | |
519 | even-numbered bank of the reading CPU's cache is extremely busy while the | |
520 | odd-numbered bank is idle, one can see the new value of the pointer P (&B), | |
6bc39274 | 521 | but the old value of the variable B (2). |
108b42b4 DH |
522 | |
523 | ||
e0edc78f | 524 | Another example of where data dependency barriers might be required is where a |
108b42b4 DH |
525 | number is read from memory and then used to calculate the index for an array |
526 | access: | |
527 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
528 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
529 | =============== =============== | |
108b42b4 DH |
530 | { M[0] == 1, M[1] == 2, M[3] = 3, P == 0, Q == 3 } |
531 | M[1] = 4; | |
532 | <write barrier> | |
2ecf8101 PM |
533 | ACCESS_ONCE(P) = 1 |
534 | Q = ACCESS_ONCE(P); | |
535 | <data dependency barrier> | |
536 | D = M[Q]; | |
108b42b4 DH |
537 | |
538 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
539 | The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system, |
540 | for example. See rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() in | |
541 | include/linux/rcupdate.h. This permits the current target of an RCU'd | |
542 | pointer to be replaced with a new modified target, without the replacement | |
543 | target appearing to be incompletely initialised. | |
108b42b4 DH |
544 | |
545 | See also the subsection on "Cache Coherency" for a more thorough example. | |
546 | ||
547 | ||
548 | CONTROL DEPENDENCIES | |
549 | -------------------- | |
550 | ||
551 | A control dependency requires a full read memory barrier, not simply a data | |
552 | dependency barrier to make it work correctly. Consider the following bit of | |
553 | code: | |
554 | ||
2ecf8101 | 555 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); |
18c03c61 PZ |
556 | if (q) { |
557 | <data dependency barrier> /* BUG: No data dependency!!! */ | |
558 | p = ACCESS_ONCE(b); | |
45c8a36a | 559 | } |
108b42b4 DH |
560 | |
561 | This will not have the desired effect because there is no actual data | |
2ecf8101 PM |
562 | dependency, but rather a control dependency that the CPU may short-circuit |
563 | by attempting to predict the outcome in advance, so that other CPUs see | |
564 | the load from b as having happened before the load from a. In such a | |
565 | case what's actually required is: | |
108b42b4 | 566 | |
2ecf8101 | 567 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); |
18c03c61 | 568 | if (q) { |
45c8a36a | 569 | <read barrier> |
18c03c61 | 570 | p = ACCESS_ONCE(b); |
45c8a36a | 571 | } |
18c03c61 PZ |
572 | |
573 | However, stores are not speculated. This means that ordering -is- provided | |
574 | in the following example: | |
575 | ||
576 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
18c03c61 | 577 | if (q) { |
2456d2a6 | 578 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; |
18c03c61 PZ |
579 | } |
580 | ||
2456d2a6 PM |
581 | Please note that ACCESS_ONCE() is not optional! Without the |
582 | ACCESS_ONCE(), might combine the load from 'a' with other loads from | |
583 | 'a', and the store to 'b' with other stores to 'b', with possible highly | |
584 | counterintuitive effects on ordering. | |
18c03c61 PZ |
585 | |
586 | Worse yet, if the compiler is able to prove (say) that the value of | |
587 | variable 'a' is always non-zero, it would be well within its rights | |
588 | to optimize the original example by eliminating the "if" statement | |
589 | as follows: | |
590 | ||
591 | q = a; | |
2456d2a6 PM |
592 | b = p; /* BUG: Compiler and CPU can both reorder!!! */ |
593 | ||
594 | So don't leave out the ACCESS_ONCE(). | |
18c03c61 | 595 | |
2456d2a6 PM |
596 | It is tempting to try to enforce ordering on identical stores on both |
597 | branches of the "if" statement as follows: | |
18c03c61 PZ |
598 | |
599 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
600 | if (q) { | |
9b2b3bf5 | 601 | barrier(); |
18c03c61 PZ |
602 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; |
603 | do_something(); | |
604 | } else { | |
9b2b3bf5 | 605 | barrier(); |
18c03c61 PZ |
606 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; |
607 | do_something_else(); | |
608 | } | |
609 | ||
2456d2a6 PM |
610 | Unfortunately, current compilers will transform this as follows at high |
611 | optimization levels: | |
18c03c61 PZ |
612 | |
613 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
2456d2a6 | 614 | barrier(); |
18c03c61 PZ |
615 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; /* BUG: No ordering vs. load from a!!! */ |
616 | if (q) { | |
617 | /* ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; -- moved up, BUG!!! */ | |
618 | do_something(); | |
619 | } else { | |
620 | /* ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; -- moved up, BUG!!! */ | |
621 | do_something_else(); | |
622 | } | |
623 | ||
2456d2a6 PM |
624 | Now there is no conditional between the load from 'a' and the store to |
625 | 'b', which means that the CPU is within its rights to reorder them: | |
626 | The conditional is absolutely required, and must be present in the | |
627 | assembly code even after all compiler optimizations have been applied. | |
628 | Therefore, if you need ordering in this example, you need explicit | |
629 | memory barriers, for example, smp_store_release(): | |
18c03c61 | 630 | |
2456d2a6 PM |
631 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); |
632 | if (q) { | |
633 | smp_store_release(&b, p); | |
18c03c61 PZ |
634 | do_something(); |
635 | } else { | |
2456d2a6 | 636 | smp_store_release(&b, p); |
18c03c61 PZ |
637 | do_something_else(); |
638 | } | |
639 | ||
2456d2a6 PM |
640 | In contrast, without explicit memory barriers, two-legged-if control |
641 | ordering is guaranteed only when the stores differ, for example: | |
642 | ||
643 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
644 | if (q) { | |
645 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; | |
646 | do_something(); | |
647 | } else { | |
648 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = r; | |
649 | do_something_else(); | |
650 | } | |
651 | ||
652 | The initial ACCESS_ONCE() is still required to prevent the compiler from | |
653 | proving the value of 'a'. | |
18c03c61 PZ |
654 | |
655 | In addition, you need to be careful what you do with the local variable 'q', | |
656 | otherwise the compiler might be able to guess the value and again remove | |
657 | the needed conditional. For example: | |
658 | ||
659 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
660 | if (q % MAX) { | |
661 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; | |
662 | do_something(); | |
663 | } else { | |
2456d2a6 | 664 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = r; |
18c03c61 PZ |
665 | do_something_else(); |
666 | } | |
667 | ||
668 | If MAX is defined to be 1, then the compiler knows that (q % MAX) is | |
669 | equal to zero, in which case the compiler is within its rights to | |
670 | transform the above code into the following: | |
671 | ||
672 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
673 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; | |
674 | do_something_else(); | |
675 | ||
2456d2a6 PM |
676 | Given this transformation, the CPU is not required to respect the ordering |
677 | between the load from variable 'a' and the store to variable 'b'. It is | |
678 | tempting to add a barrier(), but this does not help. The conditional | |
679 | is gone, and the barrier won't bring it back. Therefore, if you are | |
680 | relying on this ordering, you should make sure that MAX is greater than | |
681 | one, perhaps as follows: | |
18c03c61 PZ |
682 | |
683 | q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
684 | BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX <= 1); /* Order load from a with store to b. */ | |
685 | if (q % MAX) { | |
686 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; | |
687 | do_something(); | |
688 | } else { | |
2456d2a6 | 689 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = r; |
18c03c61 PZ |
690 | do_something_else(); |
691 | } | |
692 | ||
2456d2a6 PM |
693 | Please note once again that the stores to 'b' differ. If they were |
694 | identical, as noted earlier, the compiler could pull this store outside | |
695 | of the 'if' statement. | |
696 | ||
18c03c61 | 697 | Finally, control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. This is |
5646f7ac PM |
698 | demonstrated by two related examples, with the initial values of |
699 | x and y both being zero: | |
18c03c61 PZ |
700 | |
701 | CPU 0 CPU 1 | |
702 | ===================== ===================== | |
703 | r1 = ACCESS_ONCE(x); r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(y); | |
5646f7ac | 704 | if (r1 > 0) if (r2 > 0) |
18c03c61 PZ |
705 | ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 1; ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 1; |
706 | ||
707 | assert(!(r1 == 1 && r2 == 1)); | |
708 | ||
709 | The above two-CPU example will never trigger the assert(). However, | |
710 | if control dependencies guaranteed transitivity (which they do not), | |
5646f7ac | 711 | then adding the following CPU would guarantee a related assertion: |
18c03c61 | 712 | |
5646f7ac PM |
713 | CPU 2 |
714 | ===================== | |
715 | ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 2; | |
716 | ||
717 | assert(!(r1 == 2 && r2 == 1 && x == 2)); /* FAILS!!! */ | |
18c03c61 | 718 | |
5646f7ac PM |
719 | But because control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity, the above |
720 | assertion can fail after the combined three-CPU example completes. If you | |
721 | need the three-CPU example to provide ordering, you will need smp_mb() | |
722 | between the loads and stores in the CPU 0 and CPU 1 code fragments, | |
723 | that is, just before or just after the "if" statements. | |
18c03c61 | 724 | |
5646f7ac PM |
725 | These two examples are the LB and WWC litmus tests from this paper: |
726 | http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/ppc-supplemental/test6.pdf and this | |
727 | site: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppcmem/index.html. | |
18c03c61 PZ |
728 | |
729 | In summary: | |
730 | ||
731 | (*) Control dependencies can order prior loads against later stores. | |
732 | However, they do -not- guarantee any other sort of ordering: | |
733 | Not prior loads against later loads, nor prior stores against | |
734 | later anything. If you need these other forms of ordering, | |
735 | use smb_rmb(), smp_wmb(), or, in the case of prior stores and | |
736 | later loads, smp_mb(). | |
737 | ||
9b2b3bf5 PM |
738 | (*) If both legs of the "if" statement begin with identical stores |
739 | to the same variable, a barrier() statement is required at the | |
740 | beginning of each leg of the "if" statement. | |
741 | ||
18c03c61 | 742 | (*) Control dependencies require at least one run-time conditional |
586dd56a PM |
743 | between the prior load and the subsequent store, and this |
744 | conditional must involve the prior load. If the compiler | |
18c03c61 PZ |
745 | is able to optimize the conditional away, it will have also |
746 | optimized away the ordering. Careful use of ACCESS_ONCE() can | |
747 | help to preserve the needed conditional. | |
748 | ||
749 | (*) Control dependencies require that the compiler avoid reordering the | |
750 | dependency into nonexistence. Careful use of ACCESS_ONCE() or | |
692118da PM |
751 | barrier() can help to preserve your control dependency. Please |
752 | see the Compiler Barrier section for more information. | |
18c03c61 PZ |
753 | |
754 | (*) Control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. If you | |
755 | need transitivity, use smp_mb(). | |
108b42b4 DH |
756 | |
757 | ||
758 | SMP BARRIER PAIRING | |
759 | ------------------- | |
760 | ||
761 | When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should | |
762 | always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error. | |
763 | ||
128ea442 PM |
764 | General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair with |
765 | most other types of barriers, albeit without transitivity. An acquire | |
766 | barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also pair with other | |
767 | barriers, including of course general barriers. A write barrier pairs | |
768 | with a data dependency barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier, | |
769 | a read barrier, or a general barrier. Similarly a read barrier or a | |
770 | data dependency barrier pairs with a write barrier, an acquire barrier, | |
771 | a release barrier, or a general barrier: | |
108b42b4 | 772 | |
2ecf8101 PM |
773 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
774 | =============== =============== | |
775 | ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 1; | |
108b42b4 | 776 | <write barrier> |
2ecf8101 PM |
777 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 2; x = ACCESS_ONCE(b); |
778 | <read barrier> | |
779 | y = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
108b42b4 DH |
780 | |
781 | Or: | |
782 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
783 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
784 | =============== =============================== | |
108b42b4 DH |
785 | a = 1; |
786 | <write barrier> | |
2ecf8101 PM |
787 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = &a; x = ACCESS_ONCE(b); |
788 | <data dependency barrier> | |
789 | y = *x; | |
108b42b4 DH |
790 | |
791 | Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of | |
792 | the "weaker" type. | |
793 | ||
670bd95e | 794 | [!] Note that the stores before the write barrier would normally be expected to |
81fc6323 | 795 | match the loads after the read barrier or the data dependency barrier, and vice |
670bd95e DH |
796 | versa: |
797 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
798 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
799 | =================== =================== | |
800 | ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 1; }---- --->{ v = ACCESS_ONCE(c); | |
801 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 2; } \ / { w = ACCESS_ONCE(d); | |
802 | <write barrier> \ <read barrier> | |
803 | ACCESS_ONCE(c) = 3; } / \ { x = ACCESS_ONCE(a); | |
804 | ACCESS_ONCE(d) = 4; }---- --->{ y = ACCESS_ONCE(b); | |
670bd95e | 805 | |
108b42b4 DH |
806 | |
807 | EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES | |
808 | ------------------------------------ | |
809 | ||
81fc6323 | 810 | Firstly, write barriers act as partial orderings on store operations. |
108b42b4 DH |
811 | Consider the following sequence of events: |
812 | ||
813 | CPU 1 | |
814 | ======================= | |
815 | STORE A = 1 | |
816 | STORE B = 2 | |
817 | STORE C = 3 | |
818 | <write barrier> | |
819 | STORE D = 4 | |
820 | STORE E = 5 | |
821 | ||
822 | This sequence of events is committed to the memory coherence system in an order | |
823 | that the rest of the system might perceive as the unordered set of { STORE A, | |
80f7228b | 824 | STORE B, STORE C } all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E |
108b42b4 DH |
825 | }: |
826 | ||
827 | +-------+ : : | |
828 | | | +------+ | |
829 | | |------>| C=3 | } /\ | |
81fc6323 JP |
830 | | | : +------+ }----- \ -----> Events perceptible to |
831 | | | : | A=1 | } \/ the rest of the system | |
108b42b4 DH |
832 | | | : +------+ } |
833 | | CPU 1 | : | B=2 | } | |
834 | | | +------+ } | |
835 | | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww } <--- At this point the write barrier | |
836 | | | +------+ } requires all stores prior to the | |
837 | | | : | E=5 | } barrier to be committed before | |
81fc6323 | 838 | | | : +------+ } further stores may take place |
108b42b4 DH |
839 | | |------>| D=4 | } |
840 | | | +------+ | |
841 | +-------+ : : | |
842 | | | |
670bd95e DH |
843 | | Sequence in which stores are committed to the |
844 | | memory system by CPU 1 | |
108b42b4 DH |
845 | V |
846 | ||
847 | ||
81fc6323 | 848 | Secondly, data dependency barriers act as partial orderings on data-dependent |
108b42b4 DH |
849 | loads. Consider the following sequence of events: |
850 | ||
851 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
852 | ======================= ======================= | |
c14038c3 | 853 | { B = 7; X = 9; Y = 8; C = &Y } |
108b42b4 DH |
854 | STORE A = 1 |
855 | STORE B = 2 | |
856 | <write barrier> | |
857 | STORE C = &B LOAD X | |
858 | STORE D = 4 LOAD C (gets &B) | |
859 | LOAD *C (reads B) | |
860 | ||
861 | Without intervention, CPU 2 may perceive the events on CPU 1 in some | |
862 | effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1: | |
863 | ||
864 | +-------+ : : : : | |
865 | | | +------+ +-------+ | Sequence of update | |
866 | | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 | | of perception on | |
867 | | | : +------+ \ +-------+ | CPU 2 | |
868 | | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y | V | |
869 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
870 | | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : : | |
871 | | | +------+ | : : | |
872 | | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+ | |
873 | | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | | | |
874 | | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| | | |
875 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | | | |
876 | +-------+ : : | : : | | | |
877 | | : : | | | |
878 | | : : | CPU 2 | | |
879 | | +-------+ | | | |
880 | Apparently incorrect ---> | | B->7 |------>| | | |
881 | perception of B (!) | +-------+ | | | |
882 | | : : | | | |
883 | | +-------+ | | | |
884 | The load of X holds ---> \ | X->9 |------>| | | |
885 | up the maintenance \ +-------+ | | | |
886 | of coherence of B ----->| B->2 | +-------+ | |
887 | +-------+ | |
888 | : : | |
889 | ||
890 | ||
891 | In the above example, CPU 2 perceives that B is 7, despite the load of *C | |
670e9f34 | 892 | (which would be B) coming after the LOAD of C. |
108b42b4 DH |
893 | |
894 | If, however, a data dependency barrier were to be placed between the load of C | |
c14038c3 DH |
895 | and the load of *C (ie: B) on CPU 2: |
896 | ||
897 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
898 | ======================= ======================= | |
899 | { B = 7; X = 9; Y = 8; C = &Y } | |
900 | STORE A = 1 | |
901 | STORE B = 2 | |
902 | <write barrier> | |
903 | STORE C = &B LOAD X | |
904 | STORE D = 4 LOAD C (gets &B) | |
905 | <data dependency barrier> | |
906 | LOAD *C (reads B) | |
907 | ||
908 | then the following will occur: | |
108b42b4 DH |
909 | |
910 | +-------+ : : : : | |
911 | | | +------+ +-------+ | |
912 | | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 | | |
913 | | | : +------+ \ +-------+ | |
914 | | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y | | |
915 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
916 | | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : : | |
917 | | | +------+ | : : | |
918 | | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+ | |
919 | | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | | | |
920 | | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| | | |
921 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | | | |
922 | +-------+ : : | : : | | | |
923 | | : : | | | |
924 | | : : | CPU 2 | | |
925 | | +-------+ | | | |
670bd95e DH |
926 | | | X->9 |------>| | |
927 | | +-------+ | | | |
928 | Makes sure all effects ---> \ ddddddddddddddddd | | | |
929 | prior to the store of C \ +-------+ | | | |
930 | are perceptible to ----->| B->2 |------>| | | |
931 | subsequent loads +-------+ | | | |
108b42b4 DH |
932 | : : +-------+ |
933 | ||
934 | ||
935 | And thirdly, a read barrier acts as a partial order on loads. Consider the | |
936 | following sequence of events: | |
937 | ||
938 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
939 | ======================= ======================= | |
670bd95e | 940 | { A = 0, B = 9 } |
108b42b4 | 941 | STORE A=1 |
108b42b4 | 942 | <write barrier> |
670bd95e | 943 | STORE B=2 |
108b42b4 | 944 | LOAD B |
670bd95e | 945 | LOAD A |
108b42b4 DH |
946 | |
947 | Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in | |
948 | some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1: | |
949 | ||
670bd95e DH |
950 | +-------+ : : : : |
951 | | | +------+ +-------+ | |
952 | | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 | | |
953 | | | +------+ \ +-------+ | |
954 | | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 | | |
955 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
956 | | |------>| B=2 |--- | : : | |
957 | | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+ | |
958 | +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | | | |
959 | ---------->| B->2 |------>| | | |
960 | | +-------+ | CPU 2 | | |
961 | | | A->0 |------>| | | |
962 | | +-------+ | | | |
963 | | : : +-------+ | |
964 | \ : : | |
965 | \ +-------+ | |
966 | ---->| A->1 | | |
967 | +-------+ | |
968 | : : | |
108b42b4 | 969 | |
670bd95e | 970 | |
6bc39274 | 971 | If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of B and the |
670bd95e DH |
972 | load of A on CPU 2: |
973 | ||
974 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
975 | ======================= ======================= | |
976 | { A = 0, B = 9 } | |
977 | STORE A=1 | |
978 | <write barrier> | |
979 | STORE B=2 | |
980 | LOAD B | |
981 | <read barrier> | |
982 | LOAD A | |
983 | ||
984 | then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be perceived correctly by CPU | |
985 | 2: | |
986 | ||
987 | +-------+ : : : : | |
988 | | | +------+ +-------+ | |
989 | | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 | | |
990 | | | +------+ \ +-------+ | |
991 | | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 | | |
992 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
993 | | |------>| B=2 |--- | : : | |
994 | | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+ | |
995 | +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | | | |
996 | ---------->| B->2 |------>| | | |
997 | | +-------+ | CPU 2 | | |
998 | | : : | | | |
999 | | : : | | | |
1000 | At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | | | |
1001 | barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | | | |
1002 | prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| | | |
1003 | to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | | | |
1004 | : : +-------+ | |
1005 | ||
1006 | ||
1007 | To illustrate this more completely, consider what could happen if the code | |
1008 | contained a load of A either side of the read barrier: | |
1009 | ||
1010 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
1011 | ======================= ======================= | |
1012 | { A = 0, B = 9 } | |
1013 | STORE A=1 | |
1014 | <write barrier> | |
1015 | STORE B=2 | |
1016 | LOAD B | |
1017 | LOAD A [first load of A] | |
1018 | <read barrier> | |
1019 | LOAD A [second load of A] | |
1020 | ||
1021 | Even though the two loads of A both occur after the load of B, they may both | |
1022 | come up with different values: | |
1023 | ||
1024 | +-------+ : : : : | |
1025 | | | +------+ +-------+ | |
1026 | | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 | | |
1027 | | | +------+ \ +-------+ | |
1028 | | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 | | |
1029 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
1030 | | |------>| B=2 |--- | : : | |
1031 | | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+ | |
1032 | +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | | | |
1033 | ---------->| B->2 |------>| | | |
1034 | | +-------+ | CPU 2 | | |
1035 | | : : | | | |
1036 | | : : | | | |
1037 | | +-------+ | | | |
1038 | | | A->0 |------>| 1st | | |
1039 | | +-------+ | | | |
1040 | At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | | | |
1041 | barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | | | |
1042 | prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| 2nd | | |
1043 | to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | | | |
1044 | : : +-------+ | |
1045 | ||
1046 | ||
1047 | But it may be that the update to A from CPU 1 becomes perceptible to CPU 2 | |
1048 | before the read barrier completes anyway: | |
1049 | ||
1050 | +-------+ : : : : | |
1051 | | | +------+ +-------+ | |
1052 | | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 | | |
1053 | | | +------+ \ +-------+ | |
1054 | | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 | | |
1055 | | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
1056 | | |------>| B=2 |--- | : : | |
1057 | | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+ | |
1058 | +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | | | |
1059 | ---------->| B->2 |------>| | | |
1060 | | +-------+ | CPU 2 | | |
1061 | | : : | | | |
1062 | \ : : | | | |
1063 | \ +-------+ | | | |
1064 | ---->| A->1 |------>| 1st | | |
1065 | +-------+ | | | |
1066 | rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | | | |
1067 | +-------+ | | | |
1068 | | A->1 |------>| 2nd | | |
1069 | +-------+ | | | |
1070 | : : +-------+ | |
1071 | ||
1072 | ||
1073 | The guarantee is that the second load will always come up with A == 1 if the | |
1074 | load of B came up with B == 2. No such guarantee exists for the first load of | |
1075 | A; that may come up with either A == 0 or A == 1. | |
1076 | ||
1077 | ||
1078 | READ MEMORY BARRIERS VS LOAD SPECULATION | |
1079 | ---------------------------------------- | |
1080 | ||
1081 | Many CPUs speculate with loads: that is they see that they will need to load an | |
1082 | item from memory, and they find a time where they're not using the bus for any | |
1083 | other loads, and so do the load in advance - even though they haven't actually | |
1084 | got to that point in the instruction execution flow yet. This permits the | |
1085 | actual load instruction to potentially complete immediately because the CPU | |
1086 | already has the value to hand. | |
1087 | ||
1088 | It may turn out that the CPU didn't actually need the value - perhaps because a | |
1089 | branch circumvented the load - in which case it can discard the value or just | |
1090 | cache it for later use. | |
1091 | ||
1092 | Consider: | |
1093 | ||
e0edc78f | 1094 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
670bd95e | 1095 | ======================= ======================= |
e0edc78f IM |
1096 | LOAD B |
1097 | DIVIDE } Divide instructions generally | |
1098 | DIVIDE } take a long time to perform | |
1099 | LOAD A | |
670bd95e DH |
1100 | |
1101 | Which might appear as this: | |
1102 | ||
1103 | : : +-------+ | |
1104 | +-------+ | | | |
1105 | --->| B->2 |------>| | | |
1106 | +-------+ | CPU 2 | | |
1107 | : :DIVIDE | | | |
1108 | +-------+ | | | |
1109 | The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | | | |
1110 | division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | | | |
1111 | LOAD of A : : ~ | | | |
1112 | : :DIVIDE | | | |
1113 | : : ~ | | | |
1114 | Once the divisions are complete --> : : ~-->| | | |
1115 | the CPU can then perform the : : | | | |
1116 | LOAD with immediate effect : : +-------+ | |
1117 | ||
1118 | ||
1119 | Placing a read barrier or a data dependency barrier just before the second | |
1120 | load: | |
1121 | ||
e0edc78f | 1122 | CPU 1 CPU 2 |
670bd95e | 1123 | ======================= ======================= |
e0edc78f IM |
1124 | LOAD B |
1125 | DIVIDE | |
1126 | DIVIDE | |
670bd95e | 1127 | <read barrier> |
e0edc78f | 1128 | LOAD A |
670bd95e DH |
1129 | |
1130 | will force any value speculatively obtained to be reconsidered to an extent | |
1131 | dependent on the type of barrier used. If there was no change made to the | |
1132 | speculated memory location, then the speculated value will just be used: | |
1133 | ||
1134 | : : +-------+ | |
1135 | +-------+ | | | |
1136 | --->| B->2 |------>| | | |
1137 | +-------+ | CPU 2 | | |
1138 | : :DIVIDE | | | |
1139 | +-------+ | | | |
1140 | The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | | | |
1141 | division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | | | |
1142 | LOAD of A : : ~ | | | |
1143 | : :DIVIDE | | | |
1144 | : : ~ | | | |
1145 | : : ~ | | | |
1146 | rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~ | | | |
1147 | : : ~ | | | |
1148 | : : ~-->| | | |
1149 | : : | | | |
1150 | : : +-------+ | |
1151 | ||
1152 | ||
1153 | but if there was an update or an invalidation from another CPU pending, then | |
1154 | the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded: | |
1155 | ||
1156 | : : +-------+ | |
1157 | +-------+ | | | |
1158 | --->| B->2 |------>| | | |
1159 | +-------+ | CPU 2 | | |
1160 | : :DIVIDE | | | |
1161 | +-------+ | | | |
1162 | The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | | | |
1163 | division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | | | |
1164 | LOAD of A : : ~ | | | |
1165 | : :DIVIDE | | | |
1166 | : : ~ | | | |
1167 | : : ~ | | | |
1168 | rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | | | |
1169 | +-------+ | | | |
1170 | The speculation is discarded ---> --->| A->1 |------>| | | |
1171 | and an updated value is +-------+ | | | |
1172 | retrieved : : +-------+ | |
108b42b4 DH |
1173 | |
1174 | ||
241e6663 PM |
1175 | TRANSITIVITY |
1176 | ------------ | |
1177 | ||
1178 | Transitivity is a deeply intuitive notion about ordering that is not | |
1179 | always provided by real computer systems. The following example | |
1180 | demonstrates transitivity (also called "cumulativity"): | |
1181 | ||
1182 | CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3 | |
1183 | ======================= ======================= ======================= | |
1184 | { X = 0, Y = 0 } | |
1185 | STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1 | |
1186 | <general barrier> <general barrier> | |
1187 | LOAD Y LOAD X | |
1188 | ||
1189 | Suppose that CPU 2's load from X returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0. | |
1190 | This indicates that CPU 2's load from X in some sense follows CPU 1's | |
1191 | store to X and that CPU 2's load from Y in some sense preceded CPU 3's | |
1192 | store to Y. The question is then "Can CPU 3's load from X return 0?" | |
1193 | ||
1194 | Because CPU 2's load from X in some sense came after CPU 1's store, it | |
1195 | is natural to expect that CPU 3's load from X must therefore return 1. | |
1196 | This expectation is an example of transitivity: if a load executing on | |
1197 | CPU A follows a load from the same variable executing on CPU B, then | |
1198 | CPU A's load must either return the same value that CPU B's load did, | |
1199 | or must return some later value. | |
1200 | ||
1201 | In the Linux kernel, use of general memory barriers guarantees | |
1202 | transitivity. Therefore, in the above example, if CPU 2's load from X | |
1203 | returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0, then CPU 3's load from X must | |
1204 | also return 1. | |
1205 | ||
1206 | However, transitivity is -not- guaranteed for read or write barriers. | |
1207 | For example, suppose that CPU 2's general barrier in the above example | |
1208 | is changed to a read barrier as shown below: | |
1209 | ||
1210 | CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3 | |
1211 | ======================= ======================= ======================= | |
1212 | { X = 0, Y = 0 } | |
1213 | STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1 | |
1214 | <read barrier> <general barrier> | |
1215 | LOAD Y LOAD X | |
1216 | ||
1217 | This substitution destroys transitivity: in this example, it is perfectly | |
1218 | legal for CPU 2's load from X to return 1, its load from Y to return 0, | |
1219 | and CPU 3's load from X to return 0. | |
1220 | ||
1221 | The key point is that although CPU 2's read barrier orders its pair | |
1222 | of loads, it does not guarantee to order CPU 1's store. Therefore, if | |
1223 | this example runs on a system where CPUs 1 and 2 share a store buffer | |
1224 | or a level of cache, CPU 2 might have early access to CPU 1's writes. | |
1225 | General barriers are therefore required to ensure that all CPUs agree | |
1226 | on the combined order of CPU 1's and CPU 2's accesses. | |
1227 | ||
1228 | To reiterate, if your code requires transitivity, use general barriers | |
1229 | throughout. | |
1230 | ||
1231 | ||
108b42b4 DH |
1232 | ======================== |
1233 | EXPLICIT KERNEL BARRIERS | |
1234 | ======================== | |
1235 | ||
1236 | The Linux kernel has a variety of different barriers that act at different | |
1237 | levels: | |
1238 | ||
1239 | (*) Compiler barrier. | |
1240 | ||
1241 | (*) CPU memory barriers. | |
1242 | ||
1243 | (*) MMIO write barrier. | |
1244 | ||
1245 | ||
1246 | COMPILER BARRIER | |
1247 | ---------------- | |
1248 | ||
1249 | The Linux kernel has an explicit compiler barrier function that prevents the | |
1250 | compiler from moving the memory accesses either side of it to the other side: | |
1251 | ||
1252 | barrier(); | |
1253 | ||
18c03c61 | 1254 | This is a general barrier -- there are no read-read or write-write variants |
692118da | 1255 | of barrier(). However, ACCESS_ONCE() can be thought of as a weak form |
18c03c61 PZ |
1256 | for barrier() that affects only the specific accesses flagged by the |
1257 | ACCESS_ONCE(). | |
108b42b4 | 1258 | |
692118da PM |
1259 | The barrier() function has the following effects: |
1260 | ||
1261 | (*) Prevents the compiler from reordering accesses following the | |
1262 | barrier() to precede any accesses preceding the barrier(). | |
1263 | One example use for this property is to ease communication between | |
1264 | interrupt-handler code and the code that was interrupted. | |
1265 | ||
1266 | (*) Within a loop, forces the compiler to load the variables used | |
1267 | in that loop's conditional on each pass through that loop. | |
1268 | ||
1269 | The ACCESS_ONCE() function can prevent any number of optimizations that, | |
1270 | while perfectly safe in single-threaded code, can be fatal in concurrent | |
1271 | code. Here are some examples of these sorts of optimizations: | |
1272 | ||
449f7413 PM |
1273 | (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder loads and stores |
1274 | to the same variable, and in some cases, the CPU is within its | |
1275 | rights to reorder loads to the same variable. This means that | |
1276 | the following code: | |
1277 | ||
1278 | a[0] = x; | |
1279 | a[1] = x; | |
1280 | ||
1281 | Might result in an older value of x stored in a[1] than in a[0]. | |
1282 | Prevent both the compiler and the CPU from doing this as follows: | |
1283 | ||
1284 | a[0] = ACCESS_ONCE(x); | |
1285 | a[1] = ACCESS_ONCE(x); | |
1286 | ||
1287 | In short, ACCESS_ONCE() provides cache coherence for accesses from | |
1288 | multiple CPUs to a single variable. | |
1289 | ||
692118da PM |
1290 | (*) The compiler is within its rights to merge successive loads from |
1291 | the same variable. Such merging can cause the compiler to "optimize" | |
1292 | the following code: | |
1293 | ||
1294 | while (tmp = a) | |
1295 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1296 | ||
1297 | into the following code, which, although in some sense legitimate | |
1298 | for single-threaded code, is almost certainly not what the developer | |
1299 | intended: | |
1300 | ||
1301 | if (tmp = a) | |
1302 | for (;;) | |
1303 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1304 | ||
1305 | Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from doing this to you: | |
1306 | ||
1307 | while (tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a)) | |
1308 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1309 | ||
1310 | (*) The compiler is within its rights to reload a variable, for example, | |
1311 | in cases where high register pressure prevents the compiler from | |
1312 | keeping all data of interest in registers. The compiler might | |
1313 | therefore optimize the variable 'tmp' out of our previous example: | |
1314 | ||
1315 | while (tmp = a) | |
1316 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1317 | ||
1318 | This could result in the following code, which is perfectly safe in | |
1319 | single-threaded code, but can be fatal in concurrent code: | |
1320 | ||
1321 | while (a) | |
1322 | do_something_with(a); | |
1323 | ||
1324 | For example, the optimized version of this code could result in | |
1325 | passing a zero to do_something_with() in the case where the variable | |
1326 | a was modified by some other CPU between the "while" statement and | |
1327 | the call to do_something_with(). | |
1328 | ||
1329 | Again, use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from doing this: | |
1330 | ||
1331 | while (tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a)) | |
1332 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1333 | ||
1334 | Note that if the compiler runs short of registers, it might save | |
1335 | tmp onto the stack. The overhead of this saving and later restoring | |
1336 | is why compilers reload variables. Doing so is perfectly safe for | |
1337 | single-threaded code, so you need to tell the compiler about cases | |
1338 | where it is not safe. | |
1339 | ||
1340 | (*) The compiler is within its rights to omit a load entirely if it knows | |
1341 | what the value will be. For example, if the compiler can prove that | |
1342 | the value of variable 'a' is always zero, it can optimize this code: | |
1343 | ||
1344 | while (tmp = a) | |
1345 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1346 | ||
1347 | Into this: | |
1348 | ||
1349 | do { } while (0); | |
1350 | ||
1351 | This transformation is a win for single-threaded code because it gets | |
1352 | rid of a load and a branch. The problem is that the compiler will | |
1353 | carry out its proof assuming that the current CPU is the only one | |
1354 | updating variable 'a'. If variable 'a' is shared, then the compiler's | |
1355 | proof will be erroneous. Use ACCESS_ONCE() to tell the compiler | |
1356 | that it doesn't know as much as it thinks it does: | |
1357 | ||
1358 | while (tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a)) | |
1359 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1360 | ||
1361 | But please note that the compiler is also closely watching what you | |
1362 | do with the value after the ACCESS_ONCE(). For example, suppose you | |
1363 | do the following and MAX is a preprocessor macro with the value 1: | |
1364 | ||
1365 | while ((tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(a)) % MAX) | |
1366 | do_something_with(tmp); | |
1367 | ||
1368 | Then the compiler knows that the result of the "%" operator applied | |
1369 | to MAX will always be zero, again allowing the compiler to optimize | |
1370 | the code into near-nonexistence. (It will still load from the | |
1371 | variable 'a'.) | |
1372 | ||
1373 | (*) Similarly, the compiler is within its rights to omit a store entirely | |
1374 | if it knows that the variable already has the value being stored. | |
1375 | Again, the compiler assumes that the current CPU is the only one | |
1376 | storing into the variable, which can cause the compiler to do the | |
1377 | wrong thing for shared variables. For example, suppose you have | |
1378 | the following: | |
1379 | ||
1380 | a = 0; | |
1381 | /* Code that does not store to variable a. */ | |
1382 | a = 0; | |
1383 | ||
1384 | The compiler sees that the value of variable 'a' is already zero, so | |
1385 | it might well omit the second store. This would come as a fatal | |
1386 | surprise if some other CPU might have stored to variable 'a' in the | |
1387 | meantime. | |
1388 | ||
1389 | Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from making this sort of | |
1390 | wrong guess: | |
1391 | ||
1392 | ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 0; | |
1393 | /* Code that does not store to variable a. */ | |
1394 | ACCESS_ONCE(a) = 0; | |
1395 | ||
1396 | (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless | |
1397 | you tell it not to. For example, consider the following interaction | |
1398 | between process-level code and an interrupt handler: | |
1399 | ||
1400 | void process_level(void) | |
1401 | { | |
1402 | msg = get_message(); | |
1403 | flag = true; | |
1404 | } | |
1405 | ||
1406 | void interrupt_handler(void) | |
1407 | { | |
1408 | if (flag) | |
1409 | process_message(msg); | |
1410 | } | |
1411 | ||
df5cbb27 | 1412 | There is nothing to prevent the compiler from transforming |
692118da PM |
1413 | process_level() to the following, in fact, this might well be a |
1414 | win for single-threaded code: | |
1415 | ||
1416 | void process_level(void) | |
1417 | { | |
1418 | flag = true; | |
1419 | msg = get_message(); | |
1420 | } | |
1421 | ||
1422 | If the interrupt occurs between these two statement, then | |
1423 | interrupt_handler() might be passed a garbled msg. Use ACCESS_ONCE() | |
1424 | to prevent this as follows: | |
1425 | ||
1426 | void process_level(void) | |
1427 | { | |
1428 | ACCESS_ONCE(msg) = get_message(); | |
1429 | ACCESS_ONCE(flag) = true; | |
1430 | } | |
1431 | ||
1432 | void interrupt_handler(void) | |
1433 | { | |
1434 | if (ACCESS_ONCE(flag)) | |
1435 | process_message(ACCESS_ONCE(msg)); | |
1436 | } | |
1437 | ||
1438 | Note that the ACCESS_ONCE() wrappers in interrupt_handler() | |
1439 | are needed if this interrupt handler can itself be interrupted | |
1440 | by something that also accesses 'flag' and 'msg', for example, | |
1441 | a nested interrupt or an NMI. Otherwise, ACCESS_ONCE() is not | |
1442 | needed in interrupt_handler() other than for documentation purposes. | |
1443 | (Note also that nested interrupts do not typically occur in modern | |
1444 | Linux kernels, in fact, if an interrupt handler returns with | |
1445 | interrupts enabled, you will get a WARN_ONCE() splat.) | |
1446 | ||
1447 | You should assume that the compiler can move ACCESS_ONCE() past | |
1448 | code not containing ACCESS_ONCE(), barrier(), or similar primitives. | |
1449 | ||
1450 | This effect could also be achieved using barrier(), but ACCESS_ONCE() | |
1451 | is more selective: With ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler need only forget | |
1452 | the contents of the indicated memory locations, while with barrier() | |
1453 | the compiler must discard the value of all memory locations that | |
1454 | it has currented cached in any machine registers. Of course, | |
1455 | the compiler must also respect the order in which the ACCESS_ONCE()s | |
1456 | occur, though the CPU of course need not do so. | |
1457 | ||
1458 | (*) The compiler is within its rights to invent stores to a variable, | |
1459 | as in the following example: | |
1460 | ||
1461 | if (a) | |
1462 | b = a; | |
1463 | else | |
1464 | b = 42; | |
1465 | ||
1466 | The compiler might save a branch by optimizing this as follows: | |
1467 | ||
1468 | b = 42; | |
1469 | if (a) | |
1470 | b = a; | |
1471 | ||
1472 | In single-threaded code, this is not only safe, but also saves | |
1473 | a branch. Unfortunately, in concurrent code, this optimization | |
1474 | could cause some other CPU to see a spurious value of 42 -- even | |
1475 | if variable 'a' was never zero -- when loading variable 'b'. | |
1476 | Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent this as follows: | |
1477 | ||
1478 | if (a) | |
1479 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = a; | |
1480 | else | |
1481 | ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 42; | |
1482 | ||
1483 | The compiler can also invent loads. These are usually less | |
1484 | damaging, but they can result in cache-line bouncing and thus in | |
1485 | poor performance and scalability. Use ACCESS_ONCE() to prevent | |
1486 | invented loads. | |
1487 | ||
1488 | (*) For aligned memory locations whose size allows them to be accessed | |
1489 | with a single memory-reference instruction, prevents "load tearing" | |
1490 | and "store tearing," in which a single large access is replaced by | |
1491 | multiple smaller accesses. For example, given an architecture having | |
1492 | 16-bit store instructions with 7-bit immediate fields, the compiler | |
1493 | might be tempted to use two 16-bit store-immediate instructions to | |
1494 | implement the following 32-bit store: | |
1495 | ||
1496 | p = 0x00010002; | |
1497 | ||
1498 | Please note that GCC really does use this sort of optimization, | |
1499 | which is not surprising given that it would likely take more | |
1500 | than two instructions to build the constant and then store it. | |
1501 | This optimization can therefore be a win in single-threaded code. | |
1502 | In fact, a recent bug (since fixed) caused GCC to incorrectly use | |
1503 | this optimization in a volatile store. In the absence of such bugs, | |
1504 | use of ACCESS_ONCE() prevents store tearing in the following example: | |
1505 | ||
1506 | ACCESS_ONCE(p) = 0x00010002; | |
1507 | ||
1508 | Use of packed structures can also result in load and store tearing, | |
1509 | as in this example: | |
1510 | ||
1511 | struct __attribute__((__packed__)) foo { | |
1512 | short a; | |
1513 | int b; | |
1514 | short c; | |
1515 | }; | |
1516 | struct foo foo1, foo2; | |
1517 | ... | |
1518 | ||
1519 | foo2.a = foo1.a; | |
1520 | foo2.b = foo1.b; | |
1521 | foo2.c = foo1.c; | |
1522 | ||
1523 | Because there are no ACCESS_ONCE() wrappers and no volatile markings, | |
1524 | the compiler would be well within its rights to implement these three | |
1525 | assignment statements as a pair of 32-bit loads followed by a pair | |
1526 | of 32-bit stores. This would result in load tearing on 'foo1.b' | |
1527 | and store tearing on 'foo2.b'. ACCESS_ONCE() again prevents tearing | |
1528 | in this example: | |
1529 | ||
1530 | foo2.a = foo1.a; | |
1531 | ACCESS_ONCE(foo2.b) = ACCESS_ONCE(foo1.b); | |
1532 | foo2.c = foo1.c; | |
1533 | ||
1534 | All that aside, it is never necessary to use ACCESS_ONCE() on a variable | |
1535 | that has been marked volatile. For example, because 'jiffies' is marked | |
1536 | volatile, it is never necessary to say ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies). The reason | |
1537 | for this is that ACCESS_ONCE() is implemented as a volatile cast, which | |
1538 | has no effect when its argument is already marked volatile. | |
1539 | ||
1540 | Please note that these compiler barriers have no direct effect on the CPU, | |
1541 | which may then reorder things however it wishes. | |
108b42b4 DH |
1542 | |
1543 | ||
1544 | CPU MEMORY BARRIERS | |
1545 | ------------------- | |
1546 | ||
1547 | The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers: | |
1548 | ||
1549 | TYPE MANDATORY SMP CONDITIONAL | |
1550 | =============== ======================= =========================== | |
1551 | GENERAL mb() smp_mb() | |
1552 | WRITE wmb() smp_wmb() | |
1553 | READ rmb() smp_rmb() | |
1554 | DATA DEPENDENCY read_barrier_depends() smp_read_barrier_depends() | |
1555 | ||
1556 | ||
73f10281 NP |
1557 | All memory barriers except the data dependency barriers imply a compiler |
1558 | barrier. Data dependencies do not impose any additional compiler ordering. | |
1559 | ||
1560 | Aside: In the case of data dependencies, the compiler would be expected to | |
1561 | issue the loads in the correct order (eg. `a[b]` would have to load the value | |
1562 | of b before loading a[b]), however there is no guarantee in the C specification | |
1563 | that the compiler may not speculate the value of b (eg. is equal to 1) and load | |
1564 | a before b (eg. tmp = a[1]; if (b != 1) tmp = a[b]; ). There is also the | |
1565 | problem of a compiler reloading b after having loaded a[b], thus having a newer | |
1566 | copy of b than a[b]. A consensus has not yet been reached about these problems, | |
1567 | however the ACCESS_ONCE macro is a good place to start looking. | |
108b42b4 DH |
1568 | |
1569 | SMP memory barriers are reduced to compiler barriers on uniprocessor compiled | |
81fc6323 | 1570 | systems because it is assumed that a CPU will appear to be self-consistent, |
108b42b4 DH |
1571 | and will order overlapping accesses correctly with respect to itself. |
1572 | ||
1573 | [!] Note that SMP memory barriers _must_ be used to control the ordering of | |
1574 | references to shared memory on SMP systems, though the use of locking instead | |
1575 | is sufficient. | |
1576 | ||
1577 | Mandatory barriers should not be used to control SMP effects, since mandatory | |
1578 | barriers unnecessarily impose overhead on UP systems. They may, however, be | |
1579 | used to control MMIO effects on accesses through relaxed memory I/O windows. | |
1580 | These are required even on non-SMP systems as they affect the order in which | |
1581 | memory operations appear to a device by prohibiting both the compiler and the | |
1582 | CPU from reordering them. | |
1583 | ||
1584 | ||
1585 | There are some more advanced barrier functions: | |
1586 | ||
1587 | (*) set_mb(var, value) | |
108b42b4 | 1588 | |
75b2bd55 | 1589 | This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts a full memory |
f92213ba | 1590 | barrier after it, depending on the function. It isn't guaranteed to |
108b42b4 DH |
1591 | insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation. |
1592 | ||
1593 | ||
1b15611e PZ |
1594 | (*) smp_mb__before_atomic(); |
1595 | (*) smp_mb__after_atomic(); | |
108b42b4 | 1596 | |
1b15611e PZ |
1597 | These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and |
1598 | decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for | |
1599 | reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers. | |
1600 | ||
1601 | These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a | |
1602 | value (such as set_bit and clear_bit). | |
108b42b4 DH |
1603 | |
1604 | As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead | |
1605 | and then decrements the object's reference count: | |
1606 | ||
1607 | obj->dead = 1; | |
1b15611e | 1608 | smp_mb__before_atomic(); |
108b42b4 DH |
1609 | atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count); |
1610 | ||
1611 | This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set | |
1612 | *before* the reference counter is decremented. | |
1613 | ||
1614 | See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information. See the "Atomic | |
1615 | operations" subsection for information on where to use these. | |
1616 | ||
1617 | ||
108b42b4 DH |
1618 | MMIO WRITE BARRIER |
1619 | ------------------ | |
1620 | ||
1621 | The Linux kernel also has a special barrier for use with memory-mapped I/O | |
1622 | writes: | |
1623 | ||
1624 | mmiowb(); | |
1625 | ||
1626 | This is a variation on the mandatory write barrier that causes writes to weakly | |
1627 | ordered I/O regions to be partially ordered. Its effects may go beyond the | |
1628 | CPU->Hardware interface and actually affect the hardware at some level. | |
1629 | ||
1630 | See the subsection "Locks vs I/O accesses" for more information. | |
1631 | ||
1632 | ||
1633 | =============================== | |
1634 | IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS | |
1635 | =============================== | |
1636 | ||
1637 | Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst | |
670bd95e | 1638 | which are locking and scheduling functions. |
108b42b4 DH |
1639 | |
1640 | This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may | |
1641 | provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside | |
1642 | of arch specific code. | |
1643 | ||
1644 | ||
2e4f5382 PZ |
1645 | ACQUIRING FUNCTIONS |
1646 | ------------------- | |
108b42b4 DH |
1647 | |
1648 | The Linux kernel has a number of locking constructs: | |
1649 | ||
1650 | (*) spin locks | |
1651 | (*) R/W spin locks | |
1652 | (*) mutexes | |
1653 | (*) semaphores | |
1654 | (*) R/W semaphores | |
1655 | (*) RCU | |
1656 | ||
2e4f5382 | 1657 | In all cases there are variants on "ACQUIRE" operations and "RELEASE" operations |
108b42b4 DH |
1658 | for each construct. These operations all imply certain barriers: |
1659 | ||
2e4f5382 | 1660 | (1) ACQUIRE operation implication: |
108b42b4 | 1661 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1662 | Memory operations issued after the ACQUIRE will be completed after the |
1663 | ACQUIRE operation has completed. | |
108b42b4 | 1664 | |
8dd853d7 PM |
1665 | Memory operations issued before the ACQUIRE may be completed after |
1666 | the ACQUIRE operation has completed. An smp_mb__before_spinlock(), | |
1667 | combined with a following ACQUIRE, orders prior loads against | |
1668 | subsequent loads and stores and also orders prior stores against | |
1669 | subsequent stores. Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()! The | |
1670 | smp_mb__before_spinlock() primitive is free on many architectures. | |
108b42b4 | 1671 | |
2e4f5382 | 1672 | (2) RELEASE operation implication: |
108b42b4 | 1673 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1674 | Memory operations issued before the RELEASE will be completed before the |
1675 | RELEASE operation has completed. | |
108b42b4 | 1676 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1677 | Memory operations issued after the RELEASE may be completed before the |
1678 | RELEASE operation has completed. | |
108b42b4 | 1679 | |
2e4f5382 | 1680 | (3) ACQUIRE vs ACQUIRE implication: |
108b42b4 | 1681 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1682 | All ACQUIRE operations issued before another ACQUIRE operation will be |
1683 | completed before that ACQUIRE operation. | |
108b42b4 | 1684 | |
2e4f5382 | 1685 | (4) ACQUIRE vs RELEASE implication: |
108b42b4 | 1686 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1687 | All ACQUIRE operations issued before a RELEASE operation will be |
1688 | completed before the RELEASE operation. | |
108b42b4 | 1689 | |
2e4f5382 | 1690 | (5) Failed conditional ACQUIRE implication: |
108b42b4 | 1691 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1692 | Certain locking variants of the ACQUIRE operation may fail, either due to |
1693 | being unable to get the lock immediately, or due to receiving an unblocked | |
108b42b4 DH |
1694 | signal whilst asleep waiting for the lock to become available. Failed |
1695 | locks do not imply any sort of barrier. | |
1696 | ||
2e4f5382 PZ |
1697 | [!] Note: one of the consequences of lock ACQUIREs and RELEASEs being only |
1698 | one-way barriers is that the effects of instructions outside of a critical | |
1699 | section may seep into the inside of the critical section. | |
108b42b4 | 1700 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1701 | An ACQUIRE followed by a RELEASE may not be assumed to be full memory barrier |
1702 | because it is possible for an access preceding the ACQUIRE to happen after the | |
1703 | ACQUIRE, and an access following the RELEASE to happen before the RELEASE, and | |
1704 | the two accesses can themselves then cross: | |
670bd95e DH |
1705 | |
1706 | *A = a; | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1707 | ACQUIRE M |
1708 | RELEASE M | |
670bd95e DH |
1709 | *B = b; |
1710 | ||
1711 | may occur as: | |
1712 | ||
2e4f5382 | 1713 | ACQUIRE M, STORE *B, STORE *A, RELEASE M |
17eb88e0 | 1714 | |
8dd853d7 PM |
1715 | When the ACQUIRE and RELEASE are a lock acquisition and release, |
1716 | respectively, this same reordering can occur if the lock's ACQUIRE and | |
1717 | RELEASE are to the same lock variable, but only from the perspective of | |
1718 | another CPU not holding that lock. In short, a ACQUIRE followed by an | |
1719 | RELEASE may -not- be assumed to be a full memory barrier. | |
1720 | ||
1721 | Similarly, the reverse case of a RELEASE followed by an ACQUIRE does not | |
1722 | imply a full memory barrier. If it is necessary for a RELEASE-ACQUIRE | |
1723 | pair to produce a full barrier, the ACQUIRE can be followed by an | |
1724 | smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() invocation. This will produce a full barrier | |
1725 | if either (a) the RELEASE and the ACQUIRE are executed by the same | |
1726 | CPU or task, or (b) the RELEASE and ACQUIRE act on the same variable. | |
1727 | The smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() primitive is free on many architectures. | |
1728 | Without smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), the CPU's execution of the critical | |
1729 | sections corresponding to the RELEASE and the ACQUIRE can cross, so that: | |
17eb88e0 PM |
1730 | |
1731 | *A = a; | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1732 | RELEASE M |
1733 | ACQUIRE N | |
17eb88e0 PM |
1734 | *B = b; |
1735 | ||
1736 | could occur as: | |
1737 | ||
2e4f5382 | 1738 | ACQUIRE N, STORE *B, STORE *A, RELEASE M |
17eb88e0 | 1739 | |
8dd853d7 PM |
1740 | It might appear that this reordering could introduce a deadlock. |
1741 | However, this cannot happen because if such a deadlock threatened, | |
1742 | the RELEASE would simply complete, thereby avoiding the deadlock. | |
1743 | ||
1744 | Why does this work? | |
1745 | ||
1746 | One key point is that we are only talking about the CPU doing | |
1747 | the reordering, not the compiler. If the compiler (or, for | |
1748 | that matter, the developer) switched the operations, deadlock | |
1749 | -could- occur. | |
1750 | ||
1751 | But suppose the CPU reordered the operations. In this case, | |
1752 | the unlock precedes the lock in the assembly code. The CPU | |
1753 | simply elected to try executing the later lock operation first. | |
1754 | If there is a deadlock, this lock operation will simply spin (or | |
1755 | try to sleep, but more on that later). The CPU will eventually | |
1756 | execute the unlock operation (which preceded the lock operation | |
1757 | in the assembly code), which will unravel the potential deadlock, | |
1758 | allowing the lock operation to succeed. | |
1759 | ||
1760 | But what if the lock is a sleeplock? In that case, the code will | |
1761 | try to enter the scheduler, where it will eventually encounter | |
1762 | a memory barrier, which will force the earlier unlock operation | |
1763 | to complete, again unraveling the deadlock. There might be | |
1764 | a sleep-unlock race, but the locking primitive needs to resolve | |
1765 | such races properly in any case. | |
1766 | ||
1767 | With smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), the two critical sections cannot overlap. | |
1768 | For example, with the following code, the store to *A will always be | |
1769 | seen by other CPUs before the store to *B: | |
17eb88e0 PM |
1770 | |
1771 | *A = a; | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1772 | RELEASE M |
1773 | ACQUIRE N | |
17eb88e0 PM |
1774 | smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(); |
1775 | *B = b; | |
1776 | ||
8dd853d7 | 1777 | The operations will always occur in one of the following orders: |
17eb88e0 | 1778 | |
8dd853d7 PM |
1779 | STORE *A, RELEASE, ACQUIRE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B |
1780 | STORE *A, ACQUIRE, RELEASE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B | |
1781 | ACQUIRE, STORE *A, RELEASE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B | |
17eb88e0 | 1782 | |
2e4f5382 | 1783 | If the RELEASE and ACQUIRE were instead both operating on the same lock |
8dd853d7 PM |
1784 | variable, only the first of these alternatives can occur. In addition, |
1785 | the more strongly ordered systems may rule out some of the above orders. | |
1786 | But in any case, as noted earlier, the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() | |
1787 | ensures that the store to *A will always be seen as happening before | |
1788 | the store to *B. | |
670bd95e | 1789 | |
108b42b4 DH |
1790 | Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled |
1791 | systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve | |
1792 | anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined | |
1793 | with interrupt disabling operations. | |
1794 | ||
1795 | See also the section on "Inter-CPU locking barrier effects". | |
1796 | ||
1797 | ||
1798 | As an example, consider the following: | |
1799 | ||
1800 | *A = a; | |
1801 | *B = b; | |
2e4f5382 | 1802 | ACQUIRE |
108b42b4 DH |
1803 | *C = c; |
1804 | *D = d; | |
2e4f5382 | 1805 | RELEASE |
108b42b4 DH |
1806 | *E = e; |
1807 | *F = f; | |
1808 | ||
1809 | The following sequence of events is acceptable: | |
1810 | ||
2e4f5382 | 1811 | ACQUIRE, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, RELEASE |
108b42b4 DH |
1812 | |
1813 | [+] Note that {*F,*A} indicates a combined access. | |
1814 | ||
1815 | But none of the following are: | |
1816 | ||
2e4f5382 PZ |
1817 | {*F,*A}, *B, ACQUIRE, *C, *D, RELEASE, *E |
1818 | *A, *B, *C, ACQUIRE, *D, RELEASE, *E, *F | |
1819 | *A, *B, ACQUIRE, *C, RELEASE, *D, *E, *F | |
1820 | *B, ACQUIRE, *C, *D, RELEASE, {*F,*A}, *E | |
108b42b4 DH |
1821 | |
1822 | ||
1823 | ||
1824 | INTERRUPT DISABLING FUNCTIONS | |
1825 | ----------------------------- | |
1826 | ||
2e4f5382 PZ |
1827 | Functions that disable interrupts (ACQUIRE equivalent) and enable interrupts |
1828 | (RELEASE equivalent) will act as compiler barriers only. So if memory or I/O | |
108b42b4 DH |
1829 | barriers are required in such a situation, they must be provided from some |
1830 | other means. | |
1831 | ||
1832 | ||
50fa610a DH |
1833 | SLEEP AND WAKE-UP FUNCTIONS |
1834 | --------------------------- | |
1835 | ||
1836 | Sleeping and waking on an event flagged in global data can be viewed as an | |
1837 | interaction between two pieces of data: the task state of the task waiting for | |
1838 | the event and the global data used to indicate the event. To make sure that | |
1839 | these appear to happen in the right order, the primitives to begin the process | |
1840 | of going to sleep, and the primitives to initiate a wake up imply certain | |
1841 | barriers. | |
1842 | ||
1843 | Firstly, the sleeper normally follows something like this sequence of events: | |
1844 | ||
1845 | for (;;) { | |
1846 | set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); | |
1847 | if (event_indicated) | |
1848 | break; | |
1849 | schedule(); | |
1850 | } | |
1851 | ||
1852 | A general memory barrier is interpolated automatically by set_current_state() | |
1853 | after it has altered the task state: | |
1854 | ||
1855 | CPU 1 | |
1856 | =============================== | |
1857 | set_current_state(); | |
1858 | set_mb(); | |
1859 | STORE current->state | |
1860 | <general barrier> | |
1861 | LOAD event_indicated | |
1862 | ||
1863 | set_current_state() may be wrapped by: | |
1864 | ||
1865 | prepare_to_wait(); | |
1866 | prepare_to_wait_exclusive(); | |
1867 | ||
1868 | which therefore also imply a general memory barrier after setting the state. | |
1869 | The whole sequence above is available in various canned forms, all of which | |
1870 | interpolate the memory barrier in the right place: | |
1871 | ||
1872 | wait_event(); | |
1873 | wait_event_interruptible(); | |
1874 | wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(); | |
1875 | wait_event_interruptible_timeout(); | |
1876 | wait_event_killable(); | |
1877 | wait_event_timeout(); | |
1878 | wait_on_bit(); | |
1879 | wait_on_bit_lock(); | |
1880 | ||
1881 | ||
1882 | Secondly, code that performs a wake up normally follows something like this: | |
1883 | ||
1884 | event_indicated = 1; | |
1885 | wake_up(&event_wait_queue); | |
1886 | ||
1887 | or: | |
1888 | ||
1889 | event_indicated = 1; | |
1890 | wake_up_process(event_daemon); | |
1891 | ||
1892 | A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they wake | |
1893 | something up. The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so sits | |
1894 | between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING: | |
1895 | ||
1896 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
1897 | =============================== =============================== | |
1898 | set_current_state(); STORE event_indicated | |
1899 | set_mb(); wake_up(); | |
1900 | STORE current->state <write barrier> | |
1901 | <general barrier> STORE current->state | |
1902 | LOAD event_indicated | |
1903 | ||
5726ce06 PM |
1904 | To repeat, this write memory barrier is present if and only if something |
1905 | is actually awakened. To see this, consider the following sequence of | |
1906 | events, where X and Y are both initially zero: | |
1907 | ||
1908 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
1909 | =============================== =============================== | |
1910 | X = 1; STORE event_indicated | |
1911 | smp_mb(); wake_up(); | |
1912 | Y = 1; wait_event(wq, Y == 1); | |
1913 | wake_up(); load from Y sees 1, no memory barrier | |
1914 | load from X might see 0 | |
1915 | ||
1916 | In contrast, if a wakeup does occur, CPU 2's load from X would be guaranteed | |
1917 | to see 1. | |
1918 | ||
50fa610a DH |
1919 | The available waker functions include: |
1920 | ||
1921 | complete(); | |
1922 | wake_up(); | |
1923 | wake_up_all(); | |
1924 | wake_up_bit(); | |
1925 | wake_up_interruptible(); | |
1926 | wake_up_interruptible_all(); | |
1927 | wake_up_interruptible_nr(); | |
1928 | wake_up_interruptible_poll(); | |
1929 | wake_up_interruptible_sync(); | |
1930 | wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(); | |
1931 | wake_up_locked(); | |
1932 | wake_up_locked_poll(); | |
1933 | wake_up_nr(); | |
1934 | wake_up_poll(); | |
1935 | wake_up_process(); | |
1936 | ||
1937 | ||
1938 | [!] Note that the memory barriers implied by the sleeper and the waker do _not_ | |
1939 | order multiple stores before the wake-up with respect to loads of those stored | |
1940 | values after the sleeper has called set_current_state(). For instance, if the | |
1941 | sleeper does: | |
1942 | ||
1943 | set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); | |
1944 | if (event_indicated) | |
1945 | break; | |
1946 | __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); | |
1947 | do_something(my_data); | |
1948 | ||
1949 | and the waker does: | |
1950 | ||
1951 | my_data = value; | |
1952 | event_indicated = 1; | |
1953 | wake_up(&event_wait_queue); | |
1954 | ||
1955 | there's no guarantee that the change to event_indicated will be perceived by | |
1956 | the sleeper as coming after the change to my_data. In such a circumstance, the | |
1957 | code on both sides must interpolate its own memory barriers between the | |
1958 | separate data accesses. Thus the above sleeper ought to do: | |
1959 | ||
1960 | set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); | |
1961 | if (event_indicated) { | |
1962 | smp_rmb(); | |
1963 | do_something(my_data); | |
1964 | } | |
1965 | ||
1966 | and the waker should do: | |
1967 | ||
1968 | my_data = value; | |
1969 | smp_wmb(); | |
1970 | event_indicated = 1; | |
1971 | wake_up(&event_wait_queue); | |
1972 | ||
1973 | ||
108b42b4 DH |
1974 | MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS |
1975 | ----------------------- | |
1976 | ||
1977 | Other functions that imply barriers: | |
1978 | ||
1979 | (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers. | |
1980 | ||
108b42b4 | 1981 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
1982 | =================================== |
1983 | INTER-CPU ACQUIRING BARRIER EFFECTS | |
1984 | =================================== | |
108b42b4 DH |
1985 | |
1986 | On SMP systems locking primitives give a more substantial form of barrier: one | |
1987 | that does affect memory access ordering on other CPUs, within the context of | |
1988 | conflict on any particular lock. | |
1989 | ||
1990 | ||
2e4f5382 PZ |
1991 | ACQUIRES VS MEMORY ACCESSES |
1992 | --------------------------- | |
108b42b4 | 1993 | |
79afecfa | 1994 | Consider the following: the system has a pair of spinlocks (M) and (Q), and |
108b42b4 DH |
1995 | three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur: |
1996 | ||
1997 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
1998 | =============================== =============================== | |
2ecf8101 | 1999 | ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = a; ACCESS_ONCE(*E) = e; |
2e4f5382 | 2000 | ACQUIRE M ACQUIRE Q |
2ecf8101 PM |
2001 | ACCESS_ONCE(*B) = b; ACCESS_ONCE(*F) = f; |
2002 | ACCESS_ONCE(*C) = c; ACCESS_ONCE(*G) = g; | |
2e4f5382 | 2003 | RELEASE M RELEASE Q |
2ecf8101 | 2004 | ACCESS_ONCE(*D) = d; ACCESS_ONCE(*H) = h; |
108b42b4 | 2005 | |
81fc6323 | 2006 | Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU 3 will see the accesses to *A |
108b42b4 DH |
2007 | through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks |
2008 | on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see: | |
2009 | ||
2e4f5382 | 2010 | *E, ACQUIRE M, ACQUIRE Q, *G, *C, *F, *A, *B, RELEASE Q, *D, *H, RELEASE M |
108b42b4 DH |
2011 | |
2012 | But it won't see any of: | |
2013 | ||
2e4f5382 PZ |
2014 | *B, *C or *D preceding ACQUIRE M |
2015 | *A, *B or *C following RELEASE M | |
2016 | *F, *G or *H preceding ACQUIRE Q | |
2017 | *E, *F or *G following RELEASE Q | |
108b42b4 DH |
2018 | |
2019 | ||
2020 | However, if the following occurs: | |
2021 | ||
2022 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
2023 | =============================== =============================== | |
2ecf8101 | 2024 | ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = a; |
2e4f5382 | 2025 | ACQUIRE M [1] |
2ecf8101 PM |
2026 | ACCESS_ONCE(*B) = b; |
2027 | ACCESS_ONCE(*C) = c; | |
2e4f5382 | 2028 | RELEASE M [1] |
2ecf8101 | 2029 | ACCESS_ONCE(*D) = d; ACCESS_ONCE(*E) = e; |
2e4f5382 | 2030 | ACQUIRE M [2] |
17eb88e0 | 2031 | smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(); |
2ecf8101 PM |
2032 | ACCESS_ONCE(*F) = f; |
2033 | ACCESS_ONCE(*G) = g; | |
2e4f5382 | 2034 | RELEASE M [2] |
2ecf8101 | 2035 | ACCESS_ONCE(*H) = h; |
108b42b4 | 2036 | |
81fc6323 | 2037 | CPU 3 might see: |
108b42b4 | 2038 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
2039 | *E, ACQUIRE M [1], *C, *B, *A, RELEASE M [1], |
2040 | ACQUIRE M [2], *H, *F, *G, RELEASE M [2], *D | |
108b42b4 | 2041 | |
81fc6323 | 2042 | But assuming CPU 1 gets the lock first, CPU 3 won't see any of: |
108b42b4 | 2043 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
2044 | *B, *C, *D, *F, *G or *H preceding ACQUIRE M [1] |
2045 | *A, *B or *C following RELEASE M [1] | |
2046 | *F, *G or *H preceding ACQUIRE M [2] | |
2047 | *A, *B, *C, *E, *F or *G following RELEASE M [2] | |
108b42b4 | 2048 | |
17eb88e0 PM |
2049 | Note that the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is critically important |
2050 | here: Without it CPU 3 might see some of the above orderings. | |
2051 | Without smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), the accesses are not guaranteed | |
2052 | to be seen in order unless CPU 3 holds lock M. | |
2053 | ||
108b42b4 | 2054 | |
2e4f5382 PZ |
2055 | ACQUIRES VS I/O ACCESSES |
2056 | ------------------------ | |
108b42b4 DH |
2057 | |
2058 | Under certain circumstances (especially involving NUMA), I/O accesses within | |
2059 | two spinlocked sections on two different CPUs may be seen as interleaved by the | |
2060 | PCI bridge, because the PCI bridge does not necessarily participate in the | |
2061 | cache-coherence protocol, and is therefore incapable of issuing the required | |
2062 | read memory barriers. | |
2063 | ||
2064 | For example: | |
2065 | ||
2066 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
2067 | =============================== =============================== | |
2068 | spin_lock(Q) | |
2069 | writel(0, ADDR) | |
2070 | writel(1, DATA); | |
2071 | spin_unlock(Q); | |
2072 | spin_lock(Q); | |
2073 | writel(4, ADDR); | |
2074 | writel(5, DATA); | |
2075 | spin_unlock(Q); | |
2076 | ||
2077 | may be seen by the PCI bridge as follows: | |
2078 | ||
2079 | STORE *ADDR = 0, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = 1, STORE *DATA = 5 | |
2080 | ||
2081 | which would probably cause the hardware to malfunction. | |
2082 | ||
2083 | ||
2084 | What is necessary here is to intervene with an mmiowb() before dropping the | |
2085 | spinlock, for example: | |
2086 | ||
2087 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
2088 | =============================== =============================== | |
2089 | spin_lock(Q) | |
2090 | writel(0, ADDR) | |
2091 | writel(1, DATA); | |
2092 | mmiowb(); | |
2093 | spin_unlock(Q); | |
2094 | spin_lock(Q); | |
2095 | writel(4, ADDR); | |
2096 | writel(5, DATA); | |
2097 | mmiowb(); | |
2098 | spin_unlock(Q); | |
2099 | ||
81fc6323 JP |
2100 | this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU 1 appear at the PCI bridge |
2101 | before either of the stores issued on CPU 2. | |
108b42b4 DH |
2102 | |
2103 | ||
81fc6323 JP |
2104 | Furthermore, following a store by a load from the same device obviates the need |
2105 | for the mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load | |
108b42b4 DH |
2106 | is performed: |
2107 | ||
2108 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
2109 | =============================== =============================== | |
2110 | spin_lock(Q) | |
2111 | writel(0, ADDR) | |
2112 | a = readl(DATA); | |
2113 | spin_unlock(Q); | |
2114 | spin_lock(Q); | |
2115 | writel(4, ADDR); | |
2116 | b = readl(DATA); | |
2117 | spin_unlock(Q); | |
2118 | ||
2119 | ||
2120 | See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information. | |
2121 | ||
2122 | ||
2123 | ================================= | |
2124 | WHERE ARE MEMORY BARRIERS NEEDED? | |
2125 | ================================= | |
2126 | ||
2127 | Under normal operation, memory operation reordering is generally not going to | |
2128 | be a problem as a single-threaded linear piece of code will still appear to | |
50fa610a | 2129 | work correctly, even if it's in an SMP kernel. There are, however, four |
108b42b4 DH |
2130 | circumstances in which reordering definitely _could_ be a problem: |
2131 | ||
2132 | (*) Interprocessor interaction. | |
2133 | ||
2134 | (*) Atomic operations. | |
2135 | ||
81fc6323 | 2136 | (*) Accessing devices. |
108b42b4 DH |
2137 | |
2138 | (*) Interrupts. | |
2139 | ||
2140 | ||
2141 | INTERPROCESSOR INTERACTION | |
2142 | -------------------------- | |
2143 | ||
2144 | When there's a system with more than one processor, more than one CPU in the | |
2145 | system may be working on the same data set at the same time. This can cause | |
2146 | synchronisation problems, and the usual way of dealing with them is to use | |
2147 | locks. Locks, however, are quite expensive, and so it may be preferable to | |
2148 | operate without the use of a lock if at all possible. In such a case | |
2149 | operations that affect both CPUs may have to be carefully ordered to prevent | |
2150 | a malfunction. | |
2151 | ||
2152 | Consider, for example, the R/W semaphore slow path. Here a waiting process is | |
2153 | queued on the semaphore, by virtue of it having a piece of its stack linked to | |
2154 | the semaphore's list of waiting processes: | |
2155 | ||
2156 | struct rw_semaphore { | |
2157 | ... | |
2158 | spinlock_t lock; | |
2159 | struct list_head waiters; | |
2160 | }; | |
2161 | ||
2162 | struct rwsem_waiter { | |
2163 | struct list_head list; | |
2164 | struct task_struct *task; | |
2165 | }; | |
2166 | ||
2167 | To wake up a particular waiter, the up_read() or up_write() functions have to: | |
2168 | ||
2169 | (1) read the next pointer from this waiter's record to know as to where the | |
2170 | next waiter record is; | |
2171 | ||
81fc6323 | 2172 | (2) read the pointer to the waiter's task structure; |
108b42b4 DH |
2173 | |
2174 | (3) clear the task pointer to tell the waiter it has been given the semaphore; | |
2175 | ||
2176 | (4) call wake_up_process() on the task; and | |
2177 | ||
2178 | (5) release the reference held on the waiter's task struct. | |
2179 | ||
81fc6323 | 2180 | In other words, it has to perform this sequence of events: |
108b42b4 DH |
2181 | |
2182 | LOAD waiter->list.next; | |
2183 | LOAD waiter->task; | |
2184 | STORE waiter->task; | |
2185 | CALL wakeup | |
2186 | RELEASE task | |
2187 | ||
2188 | and if any of these steps occur out of order, then the whole thing may | |
2189 | malfunction. | |
2190 | ||
2191 | Once it has queued itself and dropped the semaphore lock, the waiter does not | |
2192 | get the lock again; it instead just waits for its task pointer to be cleared | |
2193 | before proceeding. Since the record is on the waiter's stack, this means that | |
2194 | if the task pointer is cleared _before_ the next pointer in the list is read, | |
2195 | another CPU might start processing the waiter and might clobber the waiter's | |
2196 | stack before the up*() function has a chance to read the next pointer. | |
2197 | ||
2198 | Consider then what might happen to the above sequence of events: | |
2199 | ||
2200 | CPU 1 CPU 2 | |
2201 | =============================== =============================== | |
2202 | down_xxx() | |
2203 | Queue waiter | |
2204 | Sleep | |
2205 | up_yyy() | |
2206 | LOAD waiter->task; | |
2207 | STORE waiter->task; | |
2208 | Woken up by other event | |
2209 | <preempt> | |
2210 | Resume processing | |
2211 | down_xxx() returns | |
2212 | call foo() | |
2213 | foo() clobbers *waiter | |
2214 | </preempt> | |
2215 | LOAD waiter->list.next; | |
2216 | --- OOPS --- | |
2217 | ||
2218 | This could be dealt with using the semaphore lock, but then the down_xxx() | |
2219 | function has to needlessly get the spinlock again after being woken up. | |
2220 | ||
2221 | The way to deal with this is to insert a general SMP memory barrier: | |
2222 | ||
2223 | LOAD waiter->list.next; | |
2224 | LOAD waiter->task; | |
2225 | smp_mb(); | |
2226 | STORE waiter->task; | |
2227 | CALL wakeup | |
2228 | RELEASE task | |
2229 | ||
2230 | In this case, the barrier makes a guarantee that all memory accesses before the | |
2231 | barrier will appear to happen before all the memory accesses after the barrier | |
2232 | with respect to the other CPUs on the system. It does _not_ guarantee that all | |
2233 | the memory accesses before the barrier will be complete by the time the barrier | |
2234 | instruction itself is complete. | |
2235 | ||
2236 | On a UP system - where this wouldn't be a problem - the smp_mb() is just a | |
2237 | compiler barrier, thus making sure the compiler emits the instructions in the | |
6bc39274 DH |
2238 | right order without actually intervening in the CPU. Since there's only one |
2239 | CPU, that CPU's dependency ordering logic will take care of everything else. | |
108b42b4 DH |
2240 | |
2241 | ||
2242 | ATOMIC OPERATIONS | |
2243 | ----------------- | |
2244 | ||
dbc8700e DH |
2245 | Whilst they are technically interprocessor interaction considerations, atomic |
2246 | operations are noted specially as some of them imply full memory barriers and | |
2247 | some don't, but they're very heavily relied on as a group throughout the | |
2248 | kernel. | |
2249 | ||
2250 | Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and returns information | |
2251 | about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional general memory barrier | |
26333576 NP |
2252 | (smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation (with the exception of |
2253 | explicit lock operations, described later). These include: | |
108b42b4 DH |
2254 | |
2255 | xchg(); | |
2256 | cmpxchg(); | |
fb2b5819 PM |
2257 | atomic_xchg(); atomic_long_xchg(); |
2258 | atomic_cmpxchg(); atomic_long_cmpxchg(); | |
2259 | atomic_inc_return(); atomic_long_inc_return(); | |
2260 | atomic_dec_return(); atomic_long_dec_return(); | |
2261 | atomic_add_return(); atomic_long_add_return(); | |
2262 | atomic_sub_return(); atomic_long_sub_return(); | |
2263 | atomic_inc_and_test(); atomic_long_inc_and_test(); | |
2264 | atomic_dec_and_test(); atomic_long_dec_and_test(); | |
2265 | atomic_sub_and_test(); atomic_long_sub_and_test(); | |
2266 | atomic_add_negative(); atomic_long_add_negative(); | |
dbc8700e DH |
2267 | test_and_set_bit(); |
2268 | test_and_clear_bit(); | |
2269 | test_and_change_bit(); | |
2270 | ||
fb2b5819 PM |
2271 | /* when succeeds (returns 1) */ |
2272 | atomic_add_unless(); atomic_long_add_unless(); | |
2273 | ||
2e4f5382 | 2274 | These are used for such things as implementing ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class |
dbc8700e DH |
2275 | operations and adjusting reference counters towards object destruction, and as |
2276 | such the implicit memory barrier effects are necessary. | |
108b42b4 | 2277 | |
108b42b4 | 2278 | |
81fc6323 | 2279 | The following operations are potential problems as they do _not_ imply memory |
2e4f5382 | 2280 | barriers, but might be used for implementing such things as RELEASE-class |
dbc8700e | 2281 | operations: |
108b42b4 | 2282 | |
dbc8700e | 2283 | atomic_set(); |
108b42b4 DH |
2284 | set_bit(); |
2285 | clear_bit(); | |
2286 | change_bit(); | |
dbc8700e DH |
2287 | |
2288 | With these the appropriate explicit memory barrier should be used if necessary | |
1b15611e | 2289 | (smp_mb__before_atomic() for instance). |
108b42b4 DH |
2290 | |
2291 | ||
dbc8700e | 2292 | The following also do _not_ imply memory barriers, and so may require explicit |
1b15611e | 2293 | memory barriers under some circumstances (smp_mb__before_atomic() for |
81fc6323 | 2294 | instance): |
108b42b4 DH |
2295 | |
2296 | atomic_add(); | |
2297 | atomic_sub(); | |
2298 | atomic_inc(); | |
2299 | atomic_dec(); | |
2300 | ||
2301 | If they're used for statistics generation, then they probably don't need memory | |
2302 | barriers, unless there's a coupling between statistical data. | |
2303 | ||
2304 | If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime, | |
2305 | they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count | |
2306 | will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold | |
2307 | sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary. | |
2308 | ||
2309 | If they're used for constructing a lock of some description, then they probably | |
2310 | do need memory barriers as a lock primitive generally has to do things in a | |
2311 | specific order. | |
2312 | ||
108b42b4 | 2313 | Basically, each usage case has to be carefully considered as to whether memory |
dbc8700e DH |
2314 | barriers are needed or not. |
2315 | ||
26333576 NP |
2316 | The following operations are special locking primitives: |
2317 | ||
2318 | test_and_set_bit_lock(); | |
2319 | clear_bit_unlock(); | |
2320 | __clear_bit_unlock(); | |
2321 | ||
2e4f5382 | 2322 | These implement ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class operations. These should be used in |
26333576 NP |
2323 | preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives, because |
2324 | their implementations can be optimised on many architectures. | |
2325 | ||
dbc8700e DH |
2326 | [!] Note that special memory barrier primitives are available for these |
2327 | situations because on some CPUs the atomic instructions used imply full memory | |
2328 | barriers, and so barrier instructions are superfluous in conjunction with them, | |
2329 | and in such cases the special barrier primitives will be no-ops. | |
108b42b4 DH |
2330 | |
2331 | See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information. | |
2332 | ||
2333 | ||
2334 | ACCESSING DEVICES | |
2335 | ----------------- | |
2336 | ||
2337 | Many devices can be memory mapped, and so appear to the CPU as if they're just | |
2338 | a set of memory locations. To control such a device, the driver usually has to | |
2339 | make the right memory accesses in exactly the right order. | |
2340 | ||
2341 | However, having a clever CPU or a clever compiler creates a potential problem | |
2342 | in that the carefully sequenced accesses in the driver code won't reach the | |
2343 | device in the requisite order if the CPU or the compiler thinks it is more | |
2344 | efficient to reorder, combine or merge accesses - something that would cause | |
2345 | the device to malfunction. | |
2346 | ||
2347 | Inside of the Linux kernel, I/O should be done through the appropriate accessor | |
2348 | routines - such as inb() or writel() - which know how to make such accesses | |
2349 | appropriately sequential. Whilst this, for the most part, renders the explicit | |
2350 | use of memory barriers unnecessary, there are a couple of situations where they | |
2351 | might be needed: | |
2352 | ||
2353 | (1) On some systems, I/O stores are not strongly ordered across all CPUs, and | |
2354 | so for _all_ general drivers locks should be used and mmiowb() must be | |
2355 | issued prior to unlocking the critical section. | |
2356 | ||
2357 | (2) If the accessor functions are used to refer to an I/O memory window with | |
2358 | relaxed memory access properties, then _mandatory_ memory barriers are | |
2359 | required to enforce ordering. | |
2360 | ||
2361 | See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information. | |
2362 | ||
2363 | ||
2364 | INTERRUPTS | |
2365 | ---------- | |
2366 | ||
2367 | A driver may be interrupted by its own interrupt service routine, and thus the | |
2368 | two parts of the driver may interfere with each other's attempts to control or | |
2369 | access the device. | |
2370 | ||
2371 | This may be alleviated - at least in part - by disabling local interrupts (a | |
2372 | form of locking), such that the critical operations are all contained within | |
2373 | the interrupt-disabled section in the driver. Whilst the driver's interrupt | |
2374 | routine is executing, the driver's core may not run on the same CPU, and its | |
2375 | interrupt is not permitted to happen again until the current interrupt has been | |
2376 | handled, thus the interrupt handler does not need to lock against that. | |
2377 | ||
2378 | However, consider a driver that was talking to an ethernet card that sports an | |
2379 | address register and a data register. If that driver's core talks to the card | |
2380 | under interrupt-disablement and then the driver's interrupt handler is invoked: | |
2381 | ||
2382 | LOCAL IRQ DISABLE | |
2383 | writew(ADDR, 3); | |
2384 | writew(DATA, y); | |
2385 | LOCAL IRQ ENABLE | |
2386 | <interrupt> | |
2387 | writew(ADDR, 4); | |
2388 | q = readw(DATA); | |
2389 | </interrupt> | |
2390 | ||
2391 | The store to the data register might happen after the second store to the | |
2392 | address register if ordering rules are sufficiently relaxed: | |
2393 | ||
2394 | STORE *ADDR = 3, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = y, q = LOAD *DATA | |
2395 | ||
2396 | ||
2397 | If ordering rules are relaxed, it must be assumed that accesses done inside an | |
2398 | interrupt disabled section may leak outside of it and may interleave with | |
2399 | accesses performed in an interrupt - and vice versa - unless implicit or | |
2400 | explicit barriers are used. | |
2401 | ||
2402 | Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such | |
2403 | sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O | |
2404 | registers that form implicit I/O barriers. If this isn't sufficient then an | |
2405 | mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly. | |
2406 | ||
2407 | ||
2408 | A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines | |
2409 | running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other. If such a case is | |
2410 | likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering. | |
2411 | ||
2412 | ||
2413 | ========================== | |
2414 | KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS | |
2415 | ========================== | |
2416 | ||
2417 | When accessing I/O memory, drivers should use the appropriate accessor | |
2418 | functions: | |
2419 | ||
2420 | (*) inX(), outX(): | |
2421 | ||
2422 | These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but | |
2423 | that's primarily a CPU-specific concept. The i386 and x86_64 processors do | |
2424 | indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many | |
2425 | CPUs don't have such a concept. | |
2426 | ||
81fc6323 JP |
2427 | The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept which - on such |
2428 | CPUs as i386 and x86_64 - readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O | |
6bc39274 DH |
2429 | space. However, it may also be mapped as a virtual I/O space in the CPU's |
2430 | memory map, particularly on those CPUs that don't support alternate I/O | |
2431 | spaces. | |
108b42b4 DH |
2432 | |
2433 | Accesses to this space may be fully synchronous (as on i386), but | |
2434 | intermediary bridges (such as the PCI host bridge) may not fully honour | |
2435 | that. | |
2436 | ||
2437 | They are guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to each other. | |
2438 | ||
2439 | They are not guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to other types of | |
2440 | memory and I/O operation. | |
2441 | ||
2442 | (*) readX(), writeX(): | |
2443 | ||
2444 | Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with | |
2445 | respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics | |
2446 | defined for the memory window through which they're accessing. On later | |
2447 | i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the | |
2448 | MTRR registers. | |
2449 | ||
81fc6323 | 2450 | Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined, |
108b42b4 DH |
2451 | provided they're not accessing a prefetchable device. |
2452 | ||
2453 | However, intermediary hardware (such as a PCI bridge) may indulge in | |
2454 | deferral if it so wishes; to flush a store, a load from the same location | |
2455 | is preferred[*], but a load from the same device or from configuration | |
2456 | space should suffice for PCI. | |
2457 | ||
2458 | [*] NOTE! attempting to load from the same location as was written to may | |
e0edc78f IM |
2459 | cause a malfunction - consider the 16550 Rx/Tx serial registers for |
2460 | example. | |
108b42b4 DH |
2461 | |
2462 | Used with prefetchable I/O memory, an mmiowb() barrier may be required to | |
2463 | force stores to be ordered. | |
2464 | ||
2465 | Please refer to the PCI specification for more information on interactions | |
2466 | between PCI transactions. | |
2467 | ||
2468 | (*) readX_relaxed() | |
2469 | ||
2470 | These are similar to readX(), but are not guaranteed to be ordered in any | |
2471 | way. Be aware that there is no I/O read barrier available. | |
2472 | ||
2473 | (*) ioreadX(), iowriteX() | |
2474 | ||
81fc6323 | 2475 | These will perform appropriately for the type of access they're actually |
108b42b4 DH |
2476 | doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX(). |
2477 | ||
2478 | ||
2479 | ======================================== | |
2480 | ASSUMED MINIMUM EXECUTION ORDERING MODEL | |
2481 | ======================================== | |
2482 | ||
2483 | It has to be assumed that the conceptual CPU is weakly-ordered but that it will | |
2484 | maintain the appearance of program causality with respect to itself. Some CPUs | |
2485 | (such as i386 or x86_64) are more constrained than others (such as powerpc or | |
2486 | frv), and so the most relaxed case (namely DEC Alpha) must be assumed outside | |
2487 | of arch-specific code. | |
2488 | ||
2489 | This means that it must be considered that the CPU will execute its instruction | |
2490 | stream in any order it feels like - or even in parallel - provided that if an | |
81fc6323 | 2491 | instruction in the stream depends on an earlier instruction, then that |
108b42b4 DH |
2492 | earlier instruction must be sufficiently complete[*] before the later |
2493 | instruction may proceed; in other words: provided that the appearance of | |
2494 | causality is maintained. | |
2495 | ||
2496 | [*] Some instructions have more than one effect - such as changing the | |
2497 | condition codes, changing registers or changing memory - and different | |
2498 | instructions may depend on different effects. | |
2499 | ||
2500 | A CPU may also discard any instruction sequence that winds up having no | |
2501 | ultimate effect. For example, if two adjacent instructions both load an | |
2502 | immediate value into the same register, the first may be discarded. | |
2503 | ||
2504 | ||
2505 | Similarly, it has to be assumed that compiler might reorder the instruction | |
2506 | stream in any way it sees fit, again provided the appearance of causality is | |
2507 | maintained. | |
2508 | ||
2509 | ||
2510 | ============================ | |
2511 | THE EFFECTS OF THE CPU CACHE | |
2512 | ============================ | |
2513 | ||
2514 | The way cached memory operations are perceived across the system is affected to | |
2515 | a certain extent by the caches that lie between CPUs and memory, and by the | |
2516 | memory coherence system that maintains the consistency of state in the system. | |
2517 | ||
2518 | As far as the way a CPU interacts with another part of the system through the | |
2519 | caches goes, the memory system has to include the CPU's caches, and memory | |
2520 | barriers for the most part act at the interface between the CPU and its cache | |
2521 | (memory barriers logically act on the dotted line in the following diagram): | |
2522 | ||
2523 | <--- CPU ---> : <----------- Memory -----------> | |
2524 | : | |
2525 | +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+ | |
2526 | | | | | : | | | | +--------+ | |
e0edc78f IM |
2527 | | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | | | | |
2528 | | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | | | |
108b42b4 | 2529 | | | | Queue | : | | | |--->| Memory | |
e0edc78f IM |
2530 | | | | | : | | | | | | |
2531 | +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | | | |
108b42b4 DH |
2532 | : | Cache | +--------+ |
2533 | : | Coherency | | |
2534 | : | Mechanism | +--------+ | |
2535 | +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | | | |
2536 | | | | | : | | | | | | | |
2537 | | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | |--->| Device | | |
e0edc78f IM |
2538 | | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | | |
2539 | | | | Queue | : | | | | | | | |
108b42b4 DH |
2540 | | | | | : | | | | +--------+ |
2541 | +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+ | |
2542 | : | |
2543 | : | |
2544 | ||
2545 | Although any particular load or store may not actually appear outside of the | |
2546 | CPU that issued it since it may have been satisfied within the CPU's own cache, | |
2547 | it will still appear as if the full memory access had taken place as far as the | |
2548 | other CPUs are concerned since the cache coherency mechanisms will migrate the | |
2549 | cacheline over to the accessing CPU and propagate the effects upon conflict. | |
2550 | ||
2551 | The CPU core may execute instructions in any order it deems fit, provided the | |
2552 | expected program causality appears to be maintained. Some of the instructions | |
2553 | generate load and store operations which then go into the queue of memory | |
2554 | accesses to be performed. The core may place these in the queue in any order | |
2555 | it wishes, and continue execution until it is forced to wait for an instruction | |
2556 | to complete. | |
2557 | ||
2558 | What memory barriers are concerned with is controlling the order in which | |
2559 | accesses cross from the CPU side of things to the memory side of things, and | |
2560 | the order in which the effects are perceived to happen by the other observers | |
2561 | in the system. | |
2562 | ||
2563 | [!] Memory barriers are _not_ needed within a given CPU, as CPUs always see | |
2564 | their own loads and stores as if they had happened in program order. | |
2565 | ||
2566 | [!] MMIO or other device accesses may bypass the cache system. This depends on | |
2567 | the properties of the memory window through which devices are accessed and/or | |
2568 | the use of any special device communication instructions the CPU may have. | |
2569 | ||
2570 | ||
2571 | CACHE COHERENCY | |
2572 | --------------- | |
2573 | ||
2574 | Life isn't quite as simple as it may appear above, however: for while the | |
2575 | caches are expected to be coherent, there's no guarantee that that coherency | |
2576 | will be ordered. This means that whilst changes made on one CPU will | |
2577 | eventually become visible on all CPUs, there's no guarantee that they will | |
2578 | become apparent in the same order on those other CPUs. | |
2579 | ||
2580 | ||
81fc6323 JP |
2581 | Consider dealing with a system that has a pair of CPUs (1 & 2), each of which |
2582 | has a pair of parallel data caches (CPU 1 has A/B, and CPU 2 has C/D): | |
108b42b4 DH |
2583 | |
2584 | : | |
2585 | : +--------+ | |
2586 | : +---------+ | | | |
2587 | +--------+ : +--->| Cache A |<------->| | | |
2588 | | | : | +---------+ | | | |
2589 | | CPU 1 |<---+ | | | |
2590 | | | : | +---------+ | | | |
2591 | +--------+ : +--->| Cache B |<------->| | | |
2592 | : +---------+ | | | |
2593 | : | Memory | | |
2594 | : +---------+ | System | | |
2595 | +--------+ : +--->| Cache C |<------->| | | |
2596 | | | : | +---------+ | | | |
2597 | | CPU 2 |<---+ | | | |
2598 | | | : | +---------+ | | | |
2599 | +--------+ : +--->| Cache D |<------->| | | |
2600 | : +---------+ | | | |
2601 | : +--------+ | |
2602 | : | |
2603 | ||
2604 | Imagine the system has the following properties: | |
2605 | ||
2606 | (*) an odd-numbered cache line may be in cache A, cache C or it may still be | |
2607 | resident in memory; | |
2608 | ||
2609 | (*) an even-numbered cache line may be in cache B, cache D or it may still be | |
2610 | resident in memory; | |
2611 | ||
2612 | (*) whilst the CPU core is interrogating one cache, the other cache may be | |
2613 | making use of the bus to access the rest of the system - perhaps to | |
2614 | displace a dirty cacheline or to do a speculative load; | |
2615 | ||
2616 | (*) each cache has a queue of operations that need to be applied to that cache | |
2617 | to maintain coherency with the rest of the system; | |
2618 | ||
2619 | (*) the coherency queue is not flushed by normal loads to lines already | |
2620 | present in the cache, even though the contents of the queue may | |
81fc6323 | 2621 | potentially affect those loads. |
108b42b4 DH |
2622 | |
2623 | Imagine, then, that two writes are made on the first CPU, with a write barrier | |
2624 | between them to guarantee that they will appear to reach that CPU's caches in | |
2625 | the requisite order: | |
2626 | ||
2627 | CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT | |
2628 | =============== =============== ======================================= | |
2629 | u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u | |
2630 | v = 2; | |
81fc6323 | 2631 | smp_wmb(); Make sure change to v is visible before |
108b42b4 DH |
2632 | change to p |
2633 | <A:modify v=2> v is now in cache A exclusively | |
2634 | p = &v; | |
2635 | <B:modify p=&v> p is now in cache B exclusively | |
2636 | ||
2637 | The write memory barrier forces the other CPUs in the system to perceive that | |
2638 | the local CPU's caches have apparently been updated in the correct order. But | |
81fc6323 | 2639 | now imagine that the second CPU wants to read those values: |
108b42b4 DH |
2640 | |
2641 | CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT | |
2642 | =============== =============== ======================================= | |
2643 | ... | |
2644 | q = p; | |
2645 | x = *q; | |
2646 | ||
81fc6323 | 2647 | The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in the expected order, as the |
108b42b4 DH |
2648 | cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches whilst |
2649 | the update to the cacheline holding v is delayed in the other of the second | |
2650 | CPU's caches by some other cache event: | |
2651 | ||
2652 | CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT | |
2653 | =============== =============== ======================================= | |
2654 | u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u | |
2655 | v = 2; | |
2656 | smp_wmb(); | |
2657 | <A:modify v=2> <C:busy> | |
2658 | <C:queue v=2> | |
79afecfa | 2659 | p = &v; q = p; |
108b42b4 DH |
2660 | <D:request p> |
2661 | <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v> | |
e0edc78f | 2662 | <D:read p> |
108b42b4 DH |
2663 | x = *q; |
2664 | <C:read *q> Reads from v before v updated in cache | |
2665 | <C:unbusy> | |
2666 | <C:commit v=2> | |
2667 | ||
2668 | Basically, whilst both cachelines will be updated on CPU 2 eventually, there's | |
2669 | no guarantee that, without intervention, the order of update will be the same | |
2670 | as that committed on CPU 1. | |
2671 | ||
2672 | ||
2673 | To intervene, we need to interpolate a data dependency barrier or a read | |
2674 | barrier between the loads. This will force the cache to commit its coherency | |
2675 | queue before processing any further requests: | |
2676 | ||
2677 | CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT | |
2678 | =============== =============== ======================================= | |
2679 | u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u | |
2680 | v = 2; | |
2681 | smp_wmb(); | |
2682 | <A:modify v=2> <C:busy> | |
2683 | <C:queue v=2> | |
3fda982c | 2684 | p = &v; q = p; |
108b42b4 DH |
2685 | <D:request p> |
2686 | <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v> | |
e0edc78f | 2687 | <D:read p> |
108b42b4 DH |
2688 | smp_read_barrier_depends() |
2689 | <C:unbusy> | |
2690 | <C:commit v=2> | |
2691 | x = *q; | |
2692 | <C:read *q> Reads from v after v updated in cache | |
2693 | ||
2694 | ||
2695 | This sort of problem can be encountered on DEC Alpha processors as they have a | |
2696 | split cache that improves performance by making better use of the data bus. | |
2697 | Whilst most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory | |
2698 | access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on. | |
2699 | ||
2700 | Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various | |
3f6dee9b | 2701 | cachelets for normal memory accesses. The semantics of the Alpha removes the |
81fc6323 | 2702 | need for coordination in the absence of memory barriers. |
108b42b4 DH |
2703 | |
2704 | ||
2705 | CACHE COHERENCY VS DMA | |
2706 | ---------------------- | |
2707 | ||
2708 | Not all systems maintain cache coherency with respect to devices doing DMA. In | |
2709 | such cases, a device attempting DMA may obtain stale data from RAM because | |
2710 | dirty cache lines may be resident in the caches of various CPUs, and may not | |
2711 | have been written back to RAM yet. To deal with this, the appropriate part of | |
2712 | the kernel must flush the overlapping bits of cache on each CPU (and maybe | |
2713 | invalidate them as well). | |
2714 | ||
2715 | In addition, the data DMA'd to RAM by a device may be overwritten by dirty | |
2716 | cache lines being written back to RAM from a CPU's cache after the device has | |
81fc6323 JP |
2717 | installed its own data, or cache lines present in the CPU's cache may simply |
2718 | obscure the fact that RAM has been updated, until at such time as the cacheline | |
2719 | is discarded from the CPU's cache and reloaded. To deal with this, the | |
2720 | appropriate part of the kernel must invalidate the overlapping bits of the | |
108b42b4 DH |
2721 | cache on each CPU. |
2722 | ||
2723 | See Documentation/cachetlb.txt for more information on cache management. | |
2724 | ||
2725 | ||
2726 | CACHE COHERENCY VS MMIO | |
2727 | ----------------------- | |
2728 | ||
2729 | Memory mapped I/O usually takes place through memory locations that are part of | |
81fc6323 | 2730 | a window in the CPU's memory space that has different properties assigned than |
108b42b4 DH |
2731 | the usual RAM directed window. |
2732 | ||
2733 | Amongst these properties is usually the fact that such accesses bypass the | |
2734 | caching entirely and go directly to the device buses. This means MMIO accesses | |
2735 | may, in effect, overtake accesses to cached memory that were emitted earlier. | |
2736 | A memory barrier isn't sufficient in such a case, but rather the cache must be | |
2737 | flushed between the cached memory write and the MMIO access if the two are in | |
2738 | any way dependent. | |
2739 | ||
2740 | ||
2741 | ========================= | |
2742 | THE THINGS CPUS GET UP TO | |
2743 | ========================= | |
2744 | ||
2745 | A programmer might take it for granted that the CPU will perform memory | |
81fc6323 | 2746 | operations in exactly the order specified, so that if the CPU is, for example, |
108b42b4 DH |
2747 | given the following piece of code to execute: |
2748 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
2749 | a = ACCESS_ONCE(*A); |
2750 | ACCESS_ONCE(*B) = b; | |
2751 | c = ACCESS_ONCE(*C); | |
2752 | d = ACCESS_ONCE(*D); | |
2753 | ACCESS_ONCE(*E) = e; | |
108b42b4 | 2754 | |
81fc6323 | 2755 | they would then expect that the CPU will complete the memory operation for each |
108b42b4 DH |
2756 | instruction before moving on to the next one, leading to a definite sequence of |
2757 | operations as seen by external observers in the system: | |
2758 | ||
2759 | LOAD *A, STORE *B, LOAD *C, LOAD *D, STORE *E. | |
2760 | ||
2761 | ||
2762 | Reality is, of course, much messier. With many CPUs and compilers, the above | |
2763 | assumption doesn't hold because: | |
2764 | ||
2765 | (*) loads are more likely to need to be completed immediately to permit | |
2766 | execution progress, whereas stores can often be deferred without a | |
2767 | problem; | |
2768 | ||
2769 | (*) loads may be done speculatively, and the result discarded should it prove | |
2770 | to have been unnecessary; | |
2771 | ||
81fc6323 JP |
2772 | (*) loads may be done speculatively, leading to the result having been fetched |
2773 | at the wrong time in the expected sequence of events; | |
108b42b4 DH |
2774 | |
2775 | (*) the order of the memory accesses may be rearranged to promote better use | |
2776 | of the CPU buses and caches; | |
2777 | ||
2778 | (*) loads and stores may be combined to improve performance when talking to | |
2779 | memory or I/O hardware that can do batched accesses of adjacent locations, | |
2780 | thus cutting down on transaction setup costs (memory and PCI devices may | |
2781 | both be able to do this); and | |
2782 | ||
2783 | (*) the CPU's data cache may affect the ordering, and whilst cache-coherency | |
2784 | mechanisms may alleviate this - once the store has actually hit the cache | |
2785 | - there's no guarantee that the coherency management will be propagated in | |
2786 | order to other CPUs. | |
2787 | ||
2788 | So what another CPU, say, might actually observe from the above piece of code | |
2789 | is: | |
2790 | ||
2791 | LOAD *A, ..., LOAD {*C,*D}, STORE *E, STORE *B | |
2792 | ||
2793 | (Where "LOAD {*C,*D}" is a combined load) | |
2794 | ||
2795 | ||
2796 | However, it is guaranteed that a CPU will be self-consistent: it will see its | |
2797 | _own_ accesses appear to be correctly ordered, without the need for a memory | |
2798 | barrier. For instance with the following code: | |
2799 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
2800 | U = ACCESS_ONCE(*A); |
2801 | ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = V; | |
2802 | ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = W; | |
2803 | X = ACCESS_ONCE(*A); | |
2804 | ACCESS_ONCE(*A) = Y; | |
2805 | Z = ACCESS_ONCE(*A); | |
108b42b4 DH |
2806 | |
2807 | and assuming no intervention by an external influence, it can be assumed that | |
2808 | the final result will appear to be: | |
2809 | ||
2810 | U == the original value of *A | |
2811 | X == W | |
2812 | Z == Y | |
2813 | *A == Y | |
2814 | ||
2815 | The code above may cause the CPU to generate the full sequence of memory | |
2816 | accesses: | |
2817 | ||
2818 | U=LOAD *A, STORE *A=V, STORE *A=W, X=LOAD *A, STORE *A=Y, Z=LOAD *A | |
2819 | ||
2820 | in that order, but, without intervention, the sequence may have almost any | |
2821 | combination of elements combined or discarded, provided the program's view of | |
2ecf8101 PM |
2822 | the world remains consistent. Note that ACCESS_ONCE() is -not- optional |
2823 | in the above example, as there are architectures where a given CPU might | |
8dd853d7 | 2824 | reorder successive loads to the same location. On such architectures, |
2ecf8101 PM |
2825 | ACCESS_ONCE() does whatever is necessary to prevent this, for example, on |
2826 | Itanium the volatile casts used by ACCESS_ONCE() cause GCC to emit the | |
2827 | special ld.acq and st.rel instructions that prevent such reordering. | |
108b42b4 DH |
2828 | |
2829 | The compiler may also combine, discard or defer elements of the sequence before | |
2830 | the CPU even sees them. | |
2831 | ||
2832 | For instance: | |
2833 | ||
2834 | *A = V; | |
2835 | *A = W; | |
2836 | ||
2837 | may be reduced to: | |
2838 | ||
2839 | *A = W; | |
2840 | ||
2ecf8101 PM |
2841 | since, without either a write barrier or an ACCESS_ONCE(), it can be |
2842 | assumed that the effect of the storage of V to *A is lost. Similarly: | |
108b42b4 DH |
2843 | |
2844 | *A = Y; | |
2845 | Z = *A; | |
2846 | ||
2ecf8101 | 2847 | may, without a memory barrier or an ACCESS_ONCE(), be reduced to: |
108b42b4 DH |
2848 | |
2849 | *A = Y; | |
2850 | Z = Y; | |
2851 | ||
2852 | and the LOAD operation never appear outside of the CPU. | |
2853 | ||
2854 | ||
2855 | AND THEN THERE'S THE ALPHA | |
2856 | -------------------------- | |
2857 | ||
2858 | The DEC Alpha CPU is one of the most relaxed CPUs there is. Not only that, | |
2859 | some versions of the Alpha CPU have a split data cache, permitting them to have | |
81fc6323 | 2860 | two semantically-related cache lines updated at separate times. This is where |
108b42b4 DH |
2861 | the data dependency barrier really becomes necessary as this synchronises both |
2862 | caches with the memory coherence system, thus making it seem like pointer | |
2863 | changes vs new data occur in the right order. | |
2864 | ||
81fc6323 | 2865 | The Alpha defines the Linux kernel's memory barrier model. |
108b42b4 DH |
2866 | |
2867 | See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above. | |
2868 | ||
2869 | ||
90fddabf DH |
2870 | ============ |
2871 | EXAMPLE USES | |
2872 | ============ | |
2873 | ||
2874 | CIRCULAR BUFFERS | |
2875 | ---------------- | |
2876 | ||
2877 | Memory barriers can be used to implement circular buffering without the need | |
2878 | of a lock to serialise the producer with the consumer. See: | |
2879 | ||
2880 | Documentation/circular-buffers.txt | |
2881 | ||
2882 | for details. | |
2883 | ||
2884 | ||
108b42b4 DH |
2885 | ========== |
2886 | REFERENCES | |
2887 | ========== | |
2888 | ||
2889 | Alpha AXP Architecture Reference Manual, Second Edition (Sites & Witek, | |
2890 | Digital Press) | |
2891 | Chapter 5.2: Physical Address Space Characteristics | |
2892 | Chapter 5.4: Caches and Write Buffers | |
2893 | Chapter 5.5: Data Sharing | |
2894 | Chapter 5.6: Read/Write Ordering | |
2895 | ||
2896 | AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming | |
2897 | Chapter 7.1: Memory-Access Ordering | |
2898 | Chapter 7.4: Buffering and Combining Memory Writes | |
2899 | ||
2900 | IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3: | |
2901 | System Programming Guide | |
2902 | Chapter 7.1: Locked Atomic Operations | |
2903 | Chapter 7.2: Memory Ordering | |
2904 | Chapter 7.4: Serializing Instructions | |
2905 | ||
2906 | The SPARC Architecture Manual, Version 9 | |
2907 | Chapter 8: Memory Models | |
2908 | Appendix D: Formal Specification of the Memory Models | |
2909 | Appendix J: Programming with the Memory Models | |
2910 | ||
2911 | UltraSPARC Programmer Reference Manual | |
2912 | Chapter 5: Memory Accesses and Cacheability | |
2913 | Chapter 15: Sparc-V9 Memory Models | |
2914 | ||
2915 | UltraSPARC III Cu User's Manual | |
2916 | Chapter 9: Memory Models | |
2917 | ||
2918 | UltraSPARC IIIi Processor User's Manual | |
2919 | Chapter 8: Memory Models | |
2920 | ||
2921 | UltraSPARC Architecture 2005 | |
2922 | Chapter 9: Memory | |
2923 | Appendix D: Formal Specifications of the Memory Models | |
2924 | ||
2925 | UltraSPARC T1 Supplement to the UltraSPARC Architecture 2005 | |
2926 | Chapter 8: Memory Models | |
2927 | Appendix F: Caches and Cache Coherency | |
2928 | ||
2929 | Solaris Internals, Core Kernel Architecture, p63-68: | |
2930 | Chapter 3.3: Hardware Considerations for Locks and | |
2931 | Synchronization | |
2932 | ||
2933 | Unix Systems for Modern Architectures, Symmetric Multiprocessing and Caching | |
2934 | for Kernel Programmers: | |
2935 | Chapter 13: Other Memory Models | |
2936 | ||
2937 | Intel Itanium Architecture Software Developer's Manual: Volume 1: | |
2938 | Section 2.6: Speculation | |
2939 | Section 4.4: Memory Access |