diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 1913 |
1 files changed, 1913 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..f8550310a6d --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1913 @@ + ============================ + LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS + ============================ + +By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> + +Contents: + + (*) Abstract memory access model. + + - Device operations. + - Guarantees. + + (*) What are memory barriers? + + - Varieties of memory barrier. + - What may not be assumed about memory barriers? + - Data dependency barriers. + - Control dependencies. + - SMP barrier pairing. + - Examples of memory barrier sequences. + + (*) Explicit kernel barriers. + + - Compiler barrier. + - The CPU memory barriers. + - MMIO write barrier. + + (*) Implicit kernel memory barriers. + + - Locking functions. + - Interrupt disabling functions. + - Miscellaneous functions. + + (*) Inter-CPU locking barrier effects. + + - Locks vs memory accesses. + - Locks vs I/O accesses. + + (*) Where are memory barriers needed? + + - Interprocessor interaction. + - Atomic operations. + - Accessing devices. + - Interrupts. + + (*) Kernel I/O barrier effects. + + (*) Assumed minimum execution ordering model. + + (*) The effects of the cpu cache. + + - Cache coherency. + - Cache coherency vs DMA. + - Cache coherency vs MMIO. + + (*) The things CPUs get up to. + + - And then there's the Alpha. + + (*) References. + + +============================ +ABSTRACT MEMORY ACCESS MODEL +============================ + +Consider the following abstract model of the system: + + : : + : : + : : + +-------+ : +--------+ : +-------+ + | | : | | : | | + | | : | | : | | + | CPU 1 |<----->| Memory |<----->| CPU 2 | + | | : | | : | | + | | : | | : | | + +-------+ : +--------+ : +-------+ + ^ : ^ : ^ + | : | : | + | : | : | + | : v : | + | : +--------+ : | + | : | | : | + | : | | : | + +---------->| Device |<----------+ + : | | : + : | | : + : +--------+ : + : : + +Each CPU executes a program that generates memory access operations. In the +abstract CPU, memory operation ordering is very relaxed, and a CPU may actually +perform the memory operations in any order it likes, provided program causality +appears to be maintained. Similarly, the compiler may also arrange the +instructions it emits in any order it likes, provided it doesn't affect the +apparent operation of the program. + +So in the above diagram, the effects of the memory operations performed by a +CPU are perceived by the rest of the system as the operations cross the +interface between the CPU and rest of the system (the dotted lines). + + +For example, consider the following sequence of events: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============== =============== + { A == 1; B == 2 } + A = 3; x = A; + B = 4; y = B; + +The set of accesses as seen by the memory system in the middle can be arranged +in 24 different combinations: + + STORE A=3, STORE B=4, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->4 + STORE A=3, STORE B=4, y=LOAD B->4, x=LOAD A->3 + STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4, y=LOAD B->4 + STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4 + STORE A=3, y=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4, x=LOAD A->3 + STORE A=3, y=LOAD B->2, x=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4 + STORE B=4, STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->4 + STORE B=4, ... + ... + +and can thus result in four different combinations of values: + + x == 1, y == 2 + x == 1, y == 4 + x == 3, y == 2 + x == 3, y == 4 + + +Furthermore, the stores committed by a CPU to the memory system may not be +perceived by the loads made by another CPU in the same order as the stores were +committed. + + +As a further example, consider this sequence of events: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============== =============== + { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C } + B = 4; Q = P; + P = &B D = *Q; + +There is an obvious data dependency here, as the value loaded into D depends on +the address retrieved from P by CPU 2. At the end of the sequence, any of the +following results are possible: + + (Q == &A) and (D == 1) + (Q == &B) and (D == 2) + (Q == &B) and (D == 4) + +Note that CPU 2 will never try and load C into D because the CPU will load P +into Q before issuing the load of *Q. + + +DEVICE OPERATIONS +----------------- + +Some devices present their control interfaces as collections of memory +locations, but the order in which the control registers are accessed is very +important. For instance, imagine an ethernet card with a set of internal +registers that are accessed through an address port register (A) and a data +port register (D). To read internal register 5, the following code might then +be used: + + *A = 5; + x = *D; + +but this might show up as either of the following two sequences: + + STORE *A = 5, x = LOAD *D + x = LOAD *D, STORE *A = 5 + +the second of which will almost certainly result in a malfunction, since it set +the address _after_ attempting to read the register. + + +GUARANTEES +---------- + +There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU: + + (*) On any given CPU, dependent memory accesses will be issued in order, with + respect to itself. This means that for: + + Q = P; D = *Q; + + the CPU will issue the following memory operations: + + Q = LOAD P, D = LOAD *Q + + and always in that order. + + (*) Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will appear to be + ordered within that CPU. This means that for: + + a = *X; *X = b; + + the CPU will only issue the following sequence of memory operations: + + a = LOAD *X, STORE *X = b + + And for: + + *X = c; d = *X; + + the CPU will only issue: + + STORE *X = c, d = LOAD *X + + (Loads and stores overlap if they are targetted at overlapping pieces of + memory). + +And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed: + + (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued + in the order given. This means that for: + + X = *A; Y = *B; *D = Z; + + we may get any of the following sequences: + + X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z + X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B + Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z + Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A + STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B + STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A + + (*) It _must_ be assumed that overlapping memory accesses may be merged or + discarded. This means that for: + + X = *A; Y = *(A + 4); + + we may get any one of the following sequences: + + X = LOAD *A; Y = LOAD *(A + 4); + Y = LOAD *(A + 4); X = LOAD *A; + {X, Y} = LOAD {*A, *(A + 4) }; + + And for: + + *A = X; Y = *A; + + we may get either of: + + STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A; + STORE *A = Y; + + +========================= +WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS? +========================= + +As can be seen above, independent memory operations are effectively performed +in random order, but this can be a problem for CPU-CPU interaction and for I/O. +What is required is some way of intervening to instruct the compiler and the +CPU to restrict the order. + +Memory barriers are such interventions. They impose a perceived partial +ordering between the memory operations specified on either side of the barrier. +They request that the sequence of memory events generated appears to other +parts of the system as if the barrier is effective on that CPU. + + +VARIETIES OF MEMORY BARRIER +--------------------------- + +Memory barriers come in four basic varieties: + + (1) Write (or store) memory barriers. + + A write memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the STORE operations + specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all the STORE + operations specified after the barrier with respect to the other + components of the system. + + A write barrier is a partial ordering on stores only; it is not required + to have any effect on loads. + + A CPU can be viewed as as commiting a sequence of store operations to the + memory system as time progresses. All stores before a write barrier will + occur in the sequence _before_ all the stores after the write barrier. + + [!] Note that write barriers should normally be paired with read or data + dependency barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection. + + + (2) Data dependency barriers. + + A data dependency barrier is a weaker form of read barrier. In the case + where two loads are performed such that the second depends on the result + of the first (eg: the first load retrieves the address to which the second + load will be directed), a data dependency barrier would be required to + make sure that the target of the second load is updated before the address + obtained by the first load is accessed. + + A data dependency barrier is a partial ordering on interdependent loads + only; it is not required to have any effect on stores, independent loads + or overlapping loads. + + As mentioned in (1), the other CPUs in the system can be viewed as + committing sequences of stores to the memory system that the CPU being + considered can then perceive. A data dependency barrier issued by the CPU + under consideration guarantees that for any load preceding it, if that + load touches one of a sequence of stores from another CPU, then by the + time the barrier completes, the effects of all the stores prior to that + touched by the load will be perceptible to any loads issued after the data + dependency barrier. + + See the "Examples of memory barrier sequences" subsection for diagrams + showing the ordering constraints. + + [!] Note that the first load really has to have a _data_ dependency and + not a control dependency. If the address for the second load is dependent + on the first load, but the dependency is through a conditional rather than + actually loading the address itself, then it's a _control_ dependency and + a full read barrier or better is required. See the "Control dependencies" + subsection for more information. + + [!] Note that data dependency barriers should normally be paired with + write barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection. + + + (3) Read (or load) memory barriers. + + A read barrier is a data dependency barrier plus a guarantee that all the + LOAD operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before + all the LOAD operations specified after the barrier with respect to the + other components of the system. + + A read barrier is a partial ordering on loads only; it is not required to + have any effect on stores. + + Read memory barriers imply data dependency barriers, and so can substitute + for them. + + [!] Note that read barriers should normally be paired with write barriers; + see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection. + + + (4) General memory barriers. + + A general memory barrier is a combination of both a read memory barrier + and a write memory barrier. It is a partial ordering over both loads and + stores. + + General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so + can substitute for either. + + +And a couple of implicit varieties: + + (5) LOCK operations. + + This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory + operations after the LOCK operation will appear to happen after the LOCK + operation with respect to the other components of the system. + + Memory operations that occur before a LOCK operation may appear to happen + after it completes. + + A LOCK operation should almost always be paired with an UNLOCK operation. + + + (6) UNLOCK operations. + + This also acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all + memory operations before the UNLOCK operation will appear to happen before + the UNLOCK operation with respect to the other components of the system. + + Memory operations that occur after an UNLOCK operation may appear to + happen before it completes. + + LOCK and UNLOCK operations are guaranteed to appear with respect to each + other strictly in the order specified. + + The use of LOCK and UNLOCK operations generally precludes the need for + other sorts of memory barrier (but note the exceptions mentioned in the + subsection "MMIO write barrier"). + + +Memory barriers are only required where there's a possibility of interaction +between two CPUs or between a CPU and a device. If it can be guaranteed that +there won't be any such interaction in any particular piece of code, then +memory barriers are unnecessary in that piece of code. + + +Note that these are the _minimum_ guarantees. Different architectures may give +more substantial guarantees, but they may _not_ be relied upon outside of arch +specific code. + + +WHAT MAY NOT BE ASSUMED ABOUT MEMORY BARRIERS? +---------------------------------------------- + +There are certain things that the Linux kernel memory barriers do not guarantee: + + (*) There is no guarantee that any of the memory accesses specified before a + memory barrier will be _complete_ by the completion of a memory barrier + instruction; the barrier can be considered to draw a line in that CPU's + access queue that accesses of the appropriate type may not cross. + + (*) There is no guarantee that issuing a memory barrier on one CPU will have + any direct effect on another CPU or any other hardware in the system. The + indirect effect will be the order in which the second CPU sees the effects + of the first CPU's accesses occur, but see the next point: + + (*) There is no guarantee that the a CPU will see the correct order of effects + from a second CPU's accesses, even _if_ the second CPU uses a memory + barrier, unless the first CPU _also_ uses a matching memory barrier (see + the subsection on "SMP Barrier Pairing"). + + (*) There is no guarantee that some intervening piece of off-the-CPU + hardware[*] will not reorder the memory accesses. CPU cache coherency + mechanisms should propagate the indirect effects of a memory barrier + between CPUs, but might not do so in order. + + [*] For information on bus mastering DMA and coherency please read: + + Documentation/pci.txt + Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt + Documentation/DMA-API.txt + + +DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS +------------------------ + +The usage requirements of data dependency barriers are a little subtle, and +it's not always obvious that they're needed. To illustrate, consider the +following sequence of events: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============== =============== + { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C } + B = 4; + <write barrier> + P = &B + Q = P; + D = *Q; + +There's a clear data dependency here, and it would seem that by the end of the +sequence, Q must be either &A or &B, and that: + + (Q == &A) implies (D == 1) + (Q == &B) implies (D == 4) + +But! CPU 2's perception of P may be updated _before_ its perception of B, thus +leading to the following situation: + + (Q == &B) and (D == 2) ???? + +Whilst this may seem like a failure of coherency or causality maintenance, it +isn't, and this behaviour can be observed on certain real CPUs (such as the DEC +Alpha). + +To deal with this, a data dependency barrier must be inserted between the +address load and the data load: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============== =============== + { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C } + B = 4; + <write barrier> + P = &B + Q = P; + <data dependency barrier> + D = *Q; + +This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the +third possibility from arising. + +[!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on +machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes +even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache +lines. The pointer P might be stored in an odd-numbered cache line, and the +variable B might be stored in an even-numbered cache line. Then, if the +even-numbered bank of the reading CPU's cache is extremely busy while the +odd-numbered bank is idle, one can see the new value of the pointer P (&B), +but the old value of the variable B (1). + + +Another example of where data dependency barriers might by required is where a +number is read from memory and then used to calculate the index for an array +access: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============== =============== + { M[0] == 1, M[1] == 2, M[3] = 3, P == 0, Q == 3 } + M[1] = 4; + <write barrier> + P = 1 + Q = P; + <data dependency barrier> + D = M[Q]; + + +The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system, for example. +See rcu_dereference() in include/linux/rcupdate.h. This permits the current +target of an RCU'd pointer to be replaced with a new modified target, without +the replacement target appearing to be incompletely initialised. + +See also the subsection on "Cache Coherency" for a more thorough example. + + +CONTROL DEPENDENCIES +-------------------- + +A control dependency requires a full read memory barrier, not simply a data +dependency barrier to make it work correctly. Consider the following bit of +code: + + q = &a; + if (p) + q = &b; + <data dependency barrier> + x = *q; + +This will not have the desired effect because there is no actual data +dependency, but rather a control dependency that the CPU may short-circuit by +attempting to predict the outcome in advance. In such a case what's actually +required is: + + q = &a; + if (p) + q = &b; + <read barrier> + x = *q; + + +SMP BARRIER PAIRING +------------------- + +When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should +always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error. + +A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier or read +barrier, though a general barrier would also be viable. Similarly a read +barrier or a data dependency barrier should always be paired with at least an +write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============== =============== + a = 1; + <write barrier> + b = 2; x = a; + <read barrier> + y = b; + +Or: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============== =============================== + a = 1; + <write barrier> + b = &a; x = b; + <data dependency barrier> + y = *x; + +Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of +the "weaker" type. + + +EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES +------------------------------------ + +Firstly, write barriers act as a partial orderings on store operations. +Consider the following sequence of events: + + CPU 1 + ======================= + STORE A = 1 + STORE B = 2 + STORE C = 3 + <write barrier> + STORE D = 4 + STORE E = 5 + +This sequence of events is committed to the memory coherence system in an order +that the rest of the system might perceive as the unordered set of { STORE A, +STORE B, STORE C } all occuring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E +}: + + +-------+ : : + | | +------+ + | |------>| C=3 | } /\ + | | : +------+ }----- \ -----> Events perceptible + | | : | A=1 | } \/ to rest of system + | | : +------+ } + | CPU 1 | : | B=2 | } + | | +------+ } + | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww } <--- At this point the write barrier + | | +------+ } requires all stores prior to the + | | : | E=5 | } barrier to be committed before + | | : +------+ } further stores may be take place. + | |------>| D=4 | } + | | +------+ + +-------+ : : + | + | Sequence in which stores committed to memory system + | by CPU 1 + V + + +Secondly, data dependency barriers act as a partial orderings on data-dependent +loads. Consider the following sequence of events: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + ======================= ======================= + STORE A = 1 + STORE B = 2 + <write barrier> + STORE C = &B LOAD X + STORE D = 4 LOAD C (gets &B) + LOAD *C (reads B) + +Without intervention, CPU 2 may perceive the events on CPU 1 in some +effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1: + + +-------+ : : : : + | | +------+ +-------+ | Sequence of update + | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 | | of perception on + | | : +------+ \ +-------+ | CPU 2 + | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y | V + | | +------+ | +-------+ + | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : : + | | +------+ | : : + | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+ + | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | | + | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| | + | | +------+ | +-------+ | | + +-------+ : : | : : | | + | : : | | + | : : | CPU 2 | + | +-------+ | | + Apparently incorrect ---> | | B->7 |------>| | + perception of B (!) | +-------+ | | + | : : | | + | +-------+ | | + The load of X holds ---> \ | X->9 |------>| | + up the maintenance \ +-------+ | | + of coherence of B ----->| B->2 | +-------+ + +-------+ + : : + + +In the above example, CPU 2 perceives that B is 7, despite the load of *C +(which would be B) coming after the the LOAD of C. + +If, however, a data dependency barrier were to be placed between the load of C +and the load of *C (ie: B) on CPU 2, then the following will occur: + + +-------+ : : : : + | | +------+ +-------+ + | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 | + | | : +------+ \ +-------+ + | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y | + | | +------+ | +-------+ + | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : : + | | +------+ | : : + | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+ + | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | | + | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| | + | | +------+ | +-------+ | | + +-------+ : : | : : | | + | : : | | + | : : | CPU 2 | + | +-------+ | | + \ | X->9 |------>| | + \ +-------+ | | + ----->| B->2 | | | + +-------+ | | + Makes sure all effects ---> ddddddddddddddddd | | + prior to the store of C +-------+ | | + are perceptible to | B->2 |------>| | + successive loads +-------+ | | + : : +-------+ + + +And thirdly, a read barrier acts as a partial order on loads. Consider the +following sequence of events: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + ======================= ======================= + STORE A=1 + STORE B=2 + STORE C=3 + <write barrier> + STORE D=4 + STORE E=5 + LOAD A + LOAD B + LOAD C + LOAD D + LOAD E + +Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in +some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1: + + +-------+ : : + | | +------+ + | |------>| C=3 | } + | | : +------+ } + | | : | A=1 | } + | | : +------+ } + | CPU 1 | : | B=2 | }--- + | | +------+ } \ + | | wwwwwwwwwwwww} \ + | | +------+ } \ : : +-------+ + | | : | E=5 | } \ +-------+ | | + | | : +------+ } \ { | C->3 |------>| | + | |------>| D=4 | } \ { +-------+ : | | + | | +------+ \ { | E->5 | : | | + +-------+ : : \ { +-------+ : | | + Transfer -->{ | A->1 | : | CPU 2 | + from CPU 1 { +-------+ : | | + to CPU 2 { | D->4 | : | | + { +-------+ : | | + { | B->2 |------>| | + +-------+ | | + : : +-------+ + + +If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of C and the +load of D on CPU 2, then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be +perceived correctly by CPU 2. + + +-------+ : : + | | +------+ + | |------>| C=3 | } + | | : +------+ } + | | : | A=1 | }--- + | | : +------+ } \ + | CPU 1 | : | B=2 | } \ + | | +------+ \ + | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ + | | +------+ \ : : +-------+ + | | : | E=5 | } \ +-------+ | | + | | : +------+ }--- \ { | C->3 |------>| | + | |------>| D=4 | } \ \ { +-------+ : | | + | | +------+ \ -->{ | B->2 | : | | + +-------+ : : \ { +-------+ : | | + \ { | A->1 | : | CPU 2 | + \ +-------+ | | + At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | | + barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | | + prior to the storage of C \ { | E->5 | : | | + to be perceptible to CPU 2 -->{ +-------+ : | | + { | D->4 |------>| | + +-------+ | | + : : +-------+ + + +======================== +EXPLICIT KERNEL BARRIERS +======================== + +The Linux kernel has a variety of different barriers that act at different +levels: + + (*) Compiler barrier. + + (*) CPU memory barriers. + + (*) MMIO write barrier. + + +COMPILER BARRIER +---------------- + +The Linux kernel has an explicit compiler barrier function that prevents the +compiler from moving the memory accesses either side of it to the other side: + + barrier(); + +This a general barrier - lesser varieties of compiler barrier do not exist. + +The compiler barrier has no direct effect on the CPU, which may then reorder +things however it wishes. + + +CPU MEMORY BARRIERS +------------------- + +The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers: + + TYPE MANDATORY SMP CONDITIONAL + =============== ======================= =========================== + GENERAL mb() smp_mb() + WRITE wmb() smp_wmb() + READ rmb() smp_rmb() + DATA DEPENDENCY read_barrier_depends() smp_read_barrier_depends() + + +All CPU memory barriers unconditionally imply compiler barriers. + +SMP memory barriers are reduced to compiler barriers on uniprocessor compiled +systems because it is assumed that a CPU will be appear to be self-consistent, +and will order overlapping accesses correctly with respect to itself. + +[!] Note that SMP memory barriers _must_ be used to control the ordering of +references to shared memory on SMP systems, though the use of locking instead +is sufficient. + +Mandatory barriers should not be used to control SMP effects, since mandatory +barriers unnecessarily impose overhead on UP systems. They may, however, be +used to control MMIO effects on accesses through relaxed memory I/O windows. +These are required even on non-SMP systems as they affect the order in which +memory operations appear to a device by prohibiting both the compiler and the +CPU from reordering them. + + +There are some more advanced barrier functions: + + (*) set_mb(var, value) + (*) set_wmb(var, value) + + These assign the value to the variable and then insert at least a write + barrier after it, depending on the function. They aren't guaranteed to + insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation. + + + (*) smp_mb__before_atomic_dec(); + (*) smp_mb__after_atomic_dec(); + (*) smp_mb__before_atomic_inc(); + (*) smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); + + These are for use with atomic add, subtract, increment and decrement + functions, especially when used for reference counting. These functions + do not imply memory barriers. + + As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead + and then decrements the object's reference count: + + obj->dead = 1; + smp_mb__before_atomic_dec(); + atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count); + + This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set + *before* the reference counter is decremented. + + See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information. See the "Atomic + operations" subsection for information on where to use these. + + + (*) smp_mb__before_clear_bit(void); + (*) smp_mb__after_clear_bit(void); + + These are for use similar to the atomic inc/dec barriers. These are + typically used for bitwise unlocking operations, so care must be taken as + there are no implicit memory barriers here either. + + Consider implementing an unlock operation of some nature by clearing a + locking bit. The clear_bit() would then need to be barriered like this: + + smp_mb__before_clear_bit(); + clear_bit( ... ); + + This prevents memory operations before the clear leaking to after it. See + the subsection on "Locking Functions" with reference to UNLOCK operation + implications. + + See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information. See the "Atomic + operations" subsection for information on where to use these. + + +MMIO WRITE BARRIER +------------------ + +The Linux kernel also has a special barrier for use with memory-mapped I/O +writes: + + mmiowb(); + +This is a variation on the mandatory write barrier that causes writes to weakly +ordered I/O regions to be partially ordered. Its effects may go beyond the +CPU->Hardware interface and actually affect the hardware at some level. + +See the subsection "Locks vs I/O accesses" for more information. + + +=============================== +IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS +=============================== + +Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst +which are locking, scheduling and memory allocation functions. + +This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may +provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside +of arch specific code. + + +LOCKING FUNCTIONS +----------------- + +The Linux kernel has a number of locking constructs: + + (*) spin locks + (*) R/W spin locks + (*) mutexes + (*) semaphores + (*) R/W semaphores + (*) RCU + +In all cases there are variants on "LOCK" operations and "UNLOCK" operations +for each construct. These operations all imply certain barriers: + + (1) LOCK operation implication: + + Memory operations issued after the LOCK will be completed after the LOCK + operation has completed. + + Memory operations issued before the LOCK may be completed after the LOCK + operation has completed. + + (2) UNLOCK operation implication: + + Memory operations issued before the UNLOCK will be completed before the + UNLOCK operation has completed. + + Memory operations issued after the UNLOCK may be completed before the + UNLOCK operation has completed. + + (3) LOCK vs LOCK implication: + + All LOCK operations issued before another LOCK operation will be completed + before that LOCK operation. + + (4) LOCK vs UNLOCK implication: + + All LOCK operations issued before an UNLOCK operation will be completed + before the UNLOCK operation. + + All UNLOCK operations issued before a LOCK operation will be completed + before the LOCK operation. + + (5) Failed conditional LOCK implication: + + Certain variants of the LOCK operation may fail, either due to being + unable to get the lock immediately, or due to receiving an unblocked + signal whilst asleep waiting for the lock to become available. Failed + locks do not imply any sort of barrier. + +Therefore, from (1), (2) and (4) an UNLOCK followed by an unconditional LOCK is +equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not. + +[!] Note: one of the consequence of LOCKs and UNLOCKs being only one-way + barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may + seep into the inside of the critical section. + +Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled +systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve +anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined +with interrupt disabling operations. + +See also the section on "Inter-CPU locking barrier effects". + + +As an example, consider the following: + + *A = a; + *B = b; + LOCK + *C = c; + *D = d; + UNLOCK + *E = e; + *F = f; + +The following sequence of events is acceptable: + + LOCK, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, UNLOCK + + [+] Note that {*F,*A} indicates a combined access. + +But none of the following are: + + {*F,*A}, *B, LOCK, *C, *D, UNLOCK, *E + *A, *B, *C, LOCK, *D, UNLOCK, *E, *F + *A, *B, LOCK, *C, UNLOCK, *D, *E, *F + *B, LOCK, *C, *D, UNLOCK, {*F,*A}, *E + + + +INTERRUPT DISABLING FUNCTIONS +----------------------------- + +Functions that disable interrupts (LOCK equivalent) and enable interrupts +(UNLOCK equivalent) will act as compiler barriers only. So if memory or I/O +barriers are required in such a situation, they must be provided from some +other means. + + +MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS +----------------------- + +Other functions that imply barriers: + + (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers. + + (*) Memory allocation and release functions imply full memory barriers. + + +================================= +INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS +================================= + +On SMP systems locking primitives give a more substantial form of barrier: one +that does affect memory access ordering on other CPUs, within the context of +conflict on any particular lock. + + +LOCKS VS MEMORY ACCESSES +------------------------ + +Consider the following: the system has a pair of spinlocks (N) and (Q), and +three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============================== =============================== + *A = a; *E = e; + LOCK M LOCK Q + *B = b; *F = f; + *C = c; *G = g; + UNLOCK M UNLOCK Q + *D = d; *H = h; + +Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU #3 will see the accesses to *A +through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks +on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see: + + *E, LOCK M, LOCK Q, *G, *C, *F, *A, *B, UNLOCK Q, *D, *H, UNLOCK M + +But it won't see any of: + + *B, *C or *D preceding LOCK M + *A, *B or *C following UNLOCK M + *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK Q + *E, *F or *G following UNLOCK Q + + +However, if the following occurs: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============================== =============================== + *A = a; + LOCK M [1] + *B = b; + *C = c; + UNLOCK M [1] + *D = d; *E = e; + LOCK M [2] + *F = f; + *G = g; + UNLOCK M [2] + *H = h; + +CPU #3 might see: + + *E, LOCK M [1], *C, *B, *A, UNLOCK M [1], + LOCK M [2], *H, *F, *G, UNLOCK M [2], *D + +But assuming CPU #1 gets the lock first, it won't see any of: + + *B, *C, *D, *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [1] + *A, *B or *C following UNLOCK M [1] + *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [2] + *A, *B, *C, *E, *F or *G following UNLOCK M [2] + + +LOCKS VS I/O ACCESSES +--------------------- + +Under certain circumstances (especially involving NUMA), I/O accesses within +two spinlocked sections on two different CPUs may be seen as interleaved by the +PCI bridge, because the PCI bridge does not necessarily participate in the +cache-coherence protocol, and is therefore incapable of issuing the required +read memory barriers. + +For example: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============================== =============================== + spin_lock(Q) + writel(0, ADDR) + writel(1, DATA); + spin_unlock(Q); + spin_lock(Q); + writel(4, ADDR); + writel(5, DATA); + spin_unlock(Q); + +may be seen by the PCI bridge as follows: + + STORE *ADDR = 0, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = 1, STORE *DATA = 5 + +which would probably cause the hardware to malfunction. + + +What is necessary here is to intervene with an mmiowb() before dropping the +spinlock, for example: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============================== =============================== + spin_lock(Q) + writel(0, ADDR) + writel(1, DATA); + mmiowb(); + spin_unlock(Q); + spin_lock(Q); + writel(4, ADDR); + writel(5, DATA); + mmiowb(); + spin_unlock(Q); + +this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU #1 appear at the PCI bridge +before either of the stores issued on CPU #2. + + +Furthermore, following a store by a load to the same device obviates the need +for an mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load +is performed: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============================== =============================== + spin_lock(Q) + writel(0, ADDR) + a = readl(DATA); + spin_unlock(Q); + spin_lock(Q); + writel(4, ADDR); + b = readl(DATA); + spin_unlock(Q); + + +See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information. + + +================================= +WHERE ARE MEMORY BARRIERS NEEDED? +================================= + +Under normal operation, memory operation reordering is generally not going to +be a problem as a single-threaded linear piece of code will still appear to +work correctly, even if it's in an SMP kernel. There are, however, three +circumstances in which reordering definitely _could_ be a problem: + + (*) Interprocessor interaction. + + (*) Atomic operations. + + (*) Accessing devices (I/O). + + (*) Interrupts. + + +INTERPROCESSOR INTERACTION +-------------------------- + +When there's a system with more than one processor, more than one CPU in the +system may be working on the same data set at the same time. This can cause +synchronisation problems, and the usual way of dealing with them is to use +locks. Locks, however, are quite expensive, and so it may be preferable to +operate without the use of a lock if at all possible. In such a case +operations that affect both CPUs may have to be carefully ordered to prevent +a malfunction. + +Consider, for example, the R/W semaphore slow path. Here a waiting process is +queued on the semaphore, by virtue of it having a piece of its stack linked to +the semaphore's list of waiting processes: + + struct rw_semaphore { + ... + spinlock_t lock; + struct list_head waiters; + }; + + struct rwsem_waiter { + struct list_head list; + struct task_struct *task; + }; + +To wake up a particular waiter, the up_read() or up_write() functions have to: + + (1) read the next pointer from this waiter's record to know as to where the + next waiter record is; + + (4) read the pointer to the waiter's task structure; + + (3) clear the task pointer to tell the waiter it has been given the semaphore; + + (4) call wake_up_process() on the task; and + + (5) release the reference held on the waiter's task struct. + +In otherwords, it has to perform this sequence of events: + + LOAD waiter->list.next; + LOAD waiter->task; + STORE waiter->task; + CALL wakeup + RELEASE task + +and if any of these steps occur out of order, then the whole thing may +malfunction. + +Once it has queued itself and dropped the semaphore lock, the waiter does not +get the lock again; it instead just waits for its task pointer to be cleared +before proceeding. Since the record is on the waiter's stack, this means that +if the task pointer is cleared _before_ the next pointer in the list is read, +another CPU might start processing the waiter and might clobber the waiter's +stack before the up*() function has a chance to read the next pointer. + +Consider then what might happen to the above sequence of events: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 + =============================== =============================== + down_xxx() + Queue waiter + Sleep + up_yyy() + LOAD waiter->task; + STORE waiter->task; + Woken up by other event + <preempt> + Resume processing + down_xxx() returns + call foo() + foo() clobbers *waiter + </preempt> + LOAD waiter->list.next; + --- OOPS --- + +This could be dealt with using the semaphore lock, but then the down_xxx() +function has to needlessly get the spinlock again after being woken up. + +The way to deal with this is to insert a general SMP memory barrier: + + LOAD waiter->list.next; + LOAD waiter->task; + smp_mb(); + STORE waiter->task; + CALL wakeup + RELEASE task + +In this case, the barrier makes a guarantee that all memory accesses before the +barrier will appear to happen before all the memory accesses after the barrier +with respect to the other CPUs on the system. It does _not_ guarantee that all +the memory accesses before the barrier will be complete by the time the barrier +instruction itself is complete. + +On a UP system - where this wouldn't be a problem - the smp_mb() is just a +compiler barrier, thus making sure the compiler emits the instructions in the +right order without actually intervening in the CPU. Since there there's only +one CPU, that CPU's dependency ordering logic will take care of everything +else. + + +ATOMIC OPERATIONS +----------------- + +Though they are technically interprocessor interaction considerations, atomic +operations are noted specially as they do _not_ generally imply memory +barriers. The possible offenders include: + + xchg(); + cmpxchg(); + test_and_set_bit(); + test_and_clear_bit(); + test_and_change_bit(); + atomic_cmpxchg(); + atomic_inc_return(); + atomic_dec_return(); + atomic_add_return(); + atomic_sub_return(); + atomic_inc_and_test(); + atomic_dec_and_test(); + atomic_sub_and_test(); + atomic_add_negative(); + atomic_add_unless(); + +These may be used for such things as implementing LOCK operations or controlling +the lifetime of objects by decreasing their reference counts. In such cases +they need preceding memory barriers. + +The following may also be possible offenders as they may be used as UNLOCK +operations. + + set_bit(); + clear_bit(); + change_bit(); + atomic_set(); + + +The following are a little tricky: + + atomic_add(); + atomic_sub(); + atomic_inc(); + atomic_dec(); + +If they're used for statistics generation, then they probably don't need memory +barriers, unless there's a coupling between statistical data. + +If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime, +they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count +will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold +sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary. + +If they're used for constructing a lock of some description, then they probably +do need memory barriers as a lock primitive generally has to do things in a +specific order. + + +Basically, each usage case has to be carefully considered as to whether memory +barriers are needed or not. The simplest rule is probably: if the atomic +operation is protected by a lock, then it does not require a barrier unless +there's another operation within the critical section with respect to which an +ordering must be maintained. + +See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information. + + +ACCESSING DEVICES +----------------- + +Many devices can be memory mapped, and so appear to the CPU as if they're just +a set of memory locations. To control such a device, the driver usually has to +make the right memory accesses in exactly the right order. + +However, having a clever CPU or a clever compiler creates a potential problem +in that the carefully sequenced accesses in the driver code won't reach the +device in the requisite order if the CPU or the compiler thinks it is more +efficient to reorder, combine or merge accesses - something that would cause +the device to malfunction. + +Inside of the Linux kernel, I/O should be done through the appropriate accessor +routines - such as inb() or writel() - which know how to make such accesses +appropriately sequential. Whilst this, for the most part, renders the explicit +use of memory barriers unnecessary, there are a couple of situations where they +might be needed: + + (1) On some systems, I/O stores are not strongly ordered across all CPUs, and + so for _all_ general drivers locks should be used and mmiowb() must be + issued prior to unlocking the critical section. + + (2) If the accessor functions are used to refer to an I/O memory window with + relaxed memory access properties, then _mandatory_ memory barriers are + required to enforce ordering. + +See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information. + + +INTERRUPTS +---------- + +A driver may be interrupted by its own interrupt service routine, and thus the +two parts of the driver may interfere with each other's attempts to control or +access the device. + +This may be alleviated - at least in part - by disabling local interrupts (a +form of locking), such that the critical operations are all contained within +the interrupt-disabled section in the driver. Whilst the driver's interrupt +routine is executing, the driver's core may not run on the same CPU, and its +interrupt is not permitted to happen again until the current interrupt has been +handled, thus the interrupt handler does not need to lock against that. + +However, consider a driver that was talking to an ethernet card that sports an +address register and a data register. If that driver's core talks to the card +under interrupt-disablement and then the driver's interrupt handler is invoked: + + LOCAL IRQ DISABLE + writew(ADDR, 3); + writew(DATA, y); + LOCAL IRQ ENABLE + <interrupt> + writew(ADDR, 4); + q = readw(DATA); + </interrupt> + +The store to the data register might happen after the second store to the +address register if ordering rules are sufficiently relaxed: + + STORE *ADDR = 3, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = y, q = LOAD *DATA + + +If ordering rules are relaxed, it must be assumed that accesses done inside an +interrupt disabled section may leak outside of it and may interleave with +accesses performed in an interrupt - and vice versa - unless implicit or +explicit barriers are used. + +Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such +sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O +registers that form implicit I/O barriers. If this isn't sufficient then an +mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly. + + +A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines +running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other. If such a case is +likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering. + + +========================== +KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS +========================== + +When accessing I/O memory, drivers should use the appropriate accessor +functions: + + (*) inX(), outX(): + + These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but + that's primarily a CPU-specific concept. The i386 and x86_64 processors do + indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many + CPUs don't have such a concept. + + The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept - which on such + CPUs as i386 and x86_64 cpus readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O + space. However, it may also mapped as a virtual I/O space in the CPU's + memory map, particularly on those CPUs that don't support alternate + I/O spaces. + + Accesses to this space may be fully synchronous (as on i386), but + intermediary bridges (such as the PCI host bridge) may not fully honour + that. + + They are guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to each other. + + They are not guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to other types of + memory and I/O operation. + + (*) readX(), writeX(): + + Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with + respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics + defined for the memory window through which they're accessing. On later + i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the + MTRR registers. + + Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined,, + provided they're not accessing a prefetchable device. + + However, intermediary hardware (such as a PCI bridge) may indulge in + deferral if it so wishes; to flush a store, a load from the same location + is preferred[*], but a load from the same device or from configuration + space should suffice for PCI. + + [*] NOTE! attempting to load from the same location as was written to may + cause a malfunction - consider the 16550 Rx/Tx serial registers for + example. + + Used with prefetchable I/O memory, an mmiowb() barrier may be required to + force stores to be ordered. + + Please refer to the PCI specification for more information on interactions + between PCI transactions. + + (*) readX_relaxed() + + These are similar to readX(), but are not guaranteed to be ordered in any + way. Be aware that there is no I/O read barrier available. + + (*) ioreadX(), iowriteX() + + These will perform as appropriate for the type of access they're actually + doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX(). + + +======================================== +ASSUMED MINIMUM EXECUTION ORDERING MODEL +======================================== + +It has to be assumed that the conceptual CPU is weakly-ordered but that it will +maintain the appearance of program causality with respect to itself. Some CPUs +(such as i386 or x86_64) are more constrained than others (such as powerpc or +frv), and so the most relaxed case (namely DEC Alpha) must be assumed outside +of arch-specific code. + +This means that it must be considered that the CPU will execute its instruction +stream in any order it feels like - or even in parallel - provided that if an +instruction in the stream depends on the an earlier instruction, then that +earlier instruction must be sufficiently complete[*] before the later +instruction may proceed; in other words: provided that the appearance of +causality is maintained. + + [*] Some instructions have more than one effect - such as changing the + condition codes, changing registers or changing memory - and different + instructions may depend on different effects. + +A CPU may also discard any instruction sequence that winds up having no +ultimate effect. For example, if two adjacent instructions both load an +immediate value into the same register, the first may be discarded. + + +Similarly, it has to be assumed that compiler might reorder the instruction +stream in any way it sees fit, again provided the appearance of causality is +maintained. + + +============================ +THE EFFECTS OF THE CPU CACHE +============================ + +The way cached memory operations are perceived across the system is affected to +a certain extent by the caches that lie between CPUs and memory, and by the +memory coherence system that maintains the consistency of state in the system. + +As far as the way a CPU interacts with another part of the system through the +caches goes, the memory system has to include the CPU's caches, and memory +barriers for the most part act at the interface between the CPU and its cache +(memory barriers logically act on the dotted line in the following diagram): + + <--- CPU ---> : <----------- Memory -----------> + : + +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+ + | | | | : | | | | +--------+ + | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | | | | + | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | | + | | | Queue | : | | | |--->| Memory | + | | | | : | | | | | | + +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | | + : | Cache | +--------+ + : | Coherency | + : | Mechanism | +--------+ + +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | | + | | | | : | | | | | | + | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | |--->| Device | + | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | | + | | | Queue | : | | | | | | + | | | | : | | | | +--------+ + +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+ + : + : + +Although any particular load or store may not actually appear outside of the +CPU that issued it since it may have been satisfied within the CPU's own cache, +it will still appear as if the full memory access had taken place as far as the +other CPUs are concerned since the cache coherency mechanisms will migrate the +cacheline over to the accessing CPU and propagate the effects upon conflict. + +The CPU core may execute instructions in any order it deems fit, provided the +expected program causality appears to be maintained. Some of the instructions +generate load and store operations which then go into the queue of memory +accesses to be performed. The core may place these in the queue in any order +it wishes, and continue execution until it is forced to wait for an instruction +to complete. + +What memory barriers are concerned with is controlling the order in which +accesses cross from the CPU side of things to the memory side of things, and +the order in which the effects are perceived to happen by the other observers +in the system. + +[!] Memory barriers are _not_ needed within a given CPU, as CPUs always see +their own loads and stores as if they had happened in program order. + +[!] MMIO or other device accesses may bypass the cache system. This depends on +the properties of the memory window through which devices are accessed and/or +the use of any special device communication instructions the CPU may have. + + +CACHE COHERENCY +--------------- + +Life isn't quite as simple as it may appear above, however: for while the +caches are expected to be coherent, there's no guarantee that that coherency +will be ordered. This means that whilst changes made on one CPU will +eventually become visible on all CPUs, there's no guarantee that they will +become apparent in the same order on those other CPUs. + + +Consider dealing with a system that has pair of CPUs (1 & 2), each of which has +a pair of parallel data caches (CPU 1 has A/B, and CPU 2 has C/D): + + : + : +--------+ + : +---------+ | | + +--------+ : +--->| Cache A |<------->| | + | | : | +---------+ | | + | CPU 1 |<---+ | | + | | : | +---------+ | | + +--------+ : +--->| Cache B |<------->| | + : +---------+ | | + : | Memory | + : +---------+ | System | + +--------+ : +--->| Cache C |<------->| | + | | : | +---------+ | | + | CPU 2 |<---+ | | + | | : | +---------+ | | + +--------+ : +--->| Cache D |<------->| | + : +---------+ | | + : +--------+ + : + +Imagine the system has the following properties: + + (*) an odd-numbered cache line may be in cache A, cache C or it may still be + resident in memory; + + (*) an even-numbered cache line may be in cache B, cache D or it may still be + resident in memory; + + (*) whilst the CPU core is interrogating one cache, the other cache may be + making use of the bus to access the rest of the system - perhaps to + displace a dirty cacheline or to do a speculative load; + + (*) each cache has a queue of operations that need to be applied to that cache + to maintain coherency with the rest of the system; + + (*) the coherency queue is not flushed by normal loads to lines already + present in the cache, even though the contents of the queue may + potentially effect those loads. + +Imagine, then, that two writes are made on the first CPU, with a write barrier +between them to guarantee that they will appear to reach that CPU's caches in +the requisite order: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT + =============== =============== ======================================= + u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u + v = 2; + smp_wmb(); Make sure change to v visible before + change to p + <A:modify v=2> v is now in cache A exclusively + p = &v; + <B:modify p=&v> p is now in cache B exclusively + +The write memory barrier forces the other CPUs in the system to perceive that +the local CPU's caches have apparently been updated in the correct order. But +now imagine that the second CPU that wants to read those values: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT + =============== =============== ======================================= + ... + q = p; + x = *q; + +The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in expected order, as the +cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches whilst +the update to the cacheline holding v is delayed in the other of the second +CPU's caches by some other cache event: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT + =============== =============== ======================================= + u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u + v = 2; + smp_wmb(); + <A:modify v=2> <C:busy> + <C:queue v=2> + p = &b; q = p; + <D:request p> + <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v> + <D:read p> + x = *q; + <C:read *q> Reads from v before v updated in cache + <C:unbusy> + <C:commit v=2> + +Basically, whilst both cachelines will be updated on CPU 2 eventually, there's +no guarantee that, without intervention, the order of update will be the same +as that committed on CPU 1. + + +To intervene, we need to interpolate a data dependency barrier or a read +barrier between the loads. This will force the cache to commit its coherency +queue before processing any further requests: + + CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT + =============== =============== ======================================= + u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u + v = 2; + smp_wmb(); + <A:modify v=2> <C:busy> + <C:queue v=2> + p = &b; q = p; + <D:request p> + <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v> + <D:read p> + smp_read_barrier_depends() + <C:unbusy> + <C:commit v=2> + x = *q; + <C:read *q> Reads from v after v updated in cache + + +This sort of problem can be encountered on DEC Alpha processors as they have a +split cache that improves performance by making better use of the data bus. +Whilst most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory +access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on. + +Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various +cachelets for normal memory accesss. The semantics of the Alpha removes the +need for coordination in absence of memory barriers. + + +CACHE COHERENCY VS DMA +---------------------- + +Not all systems maintain cache coherency with respect to devices doing DMA. In +such cases, a device attempting DMA may obtain stale data from RAM because +dirty cache lines may be resident in the caches of various CPUs, and may not +have been written back to RAM yet. To deal with this, the appropriate part of +the kernel must flush the overlapping bits of cache on each CPU (and maybe +invalidate them as well). + +In addition, the data DMA'd to RAM by a device may be overwritten by dirty +cache lines being written back to RAM from a CPU's cache after the device has +installed its own data, or cache lines simply present in a CPUs cache may +simply obscure the fact that RAM has been updated, until at such time as the +cacheline is discarded from the CPU's cache and reloaded. To deal with this, +the appropriate part of the kernel must invalidate the overlapping bits of the +cache on each CPU. + +See Documentation/cachetlb.txt for more information on cache management. + + +CACHE COHERENCY VS MMIO +----------------------- + +Memory mapped I/O usually takes place through memory locations that are part of +a window in the CPU's memory space that have different properties assigned than +the usual RAM directed window. + +Amongst these properties is usually the fact that such accesses bypass the +caching entirely and go directly to the device buses. This means MMIO accesses +may, in effect, overtake accesses to cached memory that were emitted earlier. +A memory barrier isn't sufficient in such a case, but rather the cache must be +flushed between the cached memory write and the MMIO access if the two are in +any way dependent. + + +========================= +THE THINGS CPUS GET UP TO +========================= + +A programmer might take it for granted that the CPU will perform memory +operations in exactly the order specified, so that if a CPU is, for example, +given the following piece of code to execute: + + a = *A; + *B = b; + c = *C; + d = *D; + *E = e; + +They would then expect that the CPU will complete the memory operation for each +instruction before moving on to the next one, leading to a definite sequence of +operations as seen by external observers in the system: + + LOAD *A, STORE *B, LOAD *C, LOAD *D, STORE *E. + + +Reality is, of course, much messier. With many CPUs and compilers, the above +assumption doesn't hold because: + + (*) loads are more likely to need to be completed immediately to permit + execution progress, whereas stores can often be deferred without a + problem; + + (*) loads may be done speculatively, and the result discarded should it prove + to have been unnecessary; + + (*) loads may be done speculatively, leading to the result having being + fetched at the wrong time in the expected sequence of events; + + (*) the order of the memory accesses may be rearranged to promote better use + of the CPU buses and caches; + + (*) loads and stores may be combined to improve performance when talking to + memory or I/O hardware that can do batched accesses of adjacent locations, + thus cutting down on transaction setup costs (memory and PCI devices may + both be able to do this); and + + (*) the CPU's data cache may affect the ordering, and whilst cache-coherency + mechanisms may alleviate this - once the store has actually hit the cache + - there's no guarantee that the coherency management will be propagated in + order to other CPUs. + +So what another CPU, say, might actually observe from the above piece of code +is: + + LOAD *A, ..., LOAD {*C,*D}, STORE *E, STORE *B + + (Where "LOAD {*C,*D}" is a combined load) + + +However, it is guaranteed that a CPU will be self-consistent: it will see its +_own_ accesses appear to be correctly ordered, without the need for a memory +barrier. For instance with the following code: + + U = *A; + *A = V; + *A = W; + X = *A; + *A = Y; + Z = *A; + +and assuming no intervention by an external influence, it can be assumed that +the final result will appear to be: + + U == the original value of *A + X == W + Z == Y + *A == Y + +The code above may cause the CPU to generate the full sequence of memory +accesses: + + U=LOAD *A, STORE *A=V, STORE *A=W, X=LOAD *A, STORE *A=Y, Z=LOAD *A + +in that order, but, without intervention, the sequence may have almost any +combination of elements combined or discarded, provided the program's view of +the world remains consistent. + +The compiler may also combine, discard or defer elements of the sequence before +the CPU even sees them. + +For instance: + + *A = V; + *A = W; + +may be reduced to: + + *A = W; + +since, without a write barrier, it can be assumed that the effect of the +storage of V to *A is lost. Similarly: + + *A = Y; + Z = *A; + +may, without a memory barrier, be reduced to: + + *A = Y; + Z = Y; + +and the LOAD operation never appear outside of the CPU. + + +AND THEN THERE'S THE ALPHA +-------------------------- + +The DEC Alpha CPU is one of the most relaxed CPUs there is. Not only that, +some versions of the Alpha CPU have a split data cache, permitting them to have +two semantically related cache lines updating at separate times. This is where +the data dependency barrier really becomes necessary as this synchronises both +caches with the memory coherence system, thus making it seem like pointer +changes vs new data occur in the right order. + +The Alpha defines the Linux's kernel's memory barrier model. + +See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above. + + +========== +REFERENCES +========== + +Alpha AXP Architecture Reference Manual, Second Edition (Sites & Witek, +Digital Press) + Chapter 5.2: Physical Address Space Characteristics + Chapter 5.4: Caches and Write Buffers + Chapter 5.5: Data Sharing + Chapter 5.6: Read/Write Ordering + +AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming + Chapter 7.1: Memory-Access Ordering + Chapter 7.4: Buffering and Combining Memory Writes + +IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3: +System Programming Guide + Chapter 7.1: Locked Atomic Operations + Chapter 7.2: Memory Ordering + Chapter 7.4: Serializing Instructions + +The SPARC Architecture Manual, Version 9 + Chapter 8: Memory Models + Appendix D: Formal Specification of the Memory Models + Appendix J: Programming with the Memory Models + +UltraSPARC Programmer Reference Manual + Chapter 5: Memory Accesses and Cacheability + Chapter 15: Sparc-V9 Memory Models + +UltraSPARC III Cu User's Manual + Chapter 9: Memory Models + +UltraSPARC IIIi Processor User's Manual + Chapter 8: Memory Models + +UltraSPARC Architecture 2005 + Chapter 9: Memory + Appendix D: Formal Specifications of the Memory Models + +UltraSPARC T1 Supplement to the UltraSPARC Architecture 2005 + Chapter 8: Memory Models + Appendix F: Caches and Cache Coherency + +Solaris Internals, Core Kernel Architecture, p63-68: + Chapter 3.3: Hardware Considerations for Locks and + Synchronization + +Unix Systems for Modern Architectures, Symmetric Multiprocessing and Caching +for Kernel Programmers: + Chapter 13: Other Memory Models + +Intel Itanium Architecture Software Developer's Manual: Volume 1: + Section 2.6: Speculation + Section 4.4: Memory Access |