blob: 2759f7c188f0cd9232ce10122d3dd6595b4f0d30 [file] [log] [blame]
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001 ============================
2 LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
3 ============================
4
5By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
David Howells90fddab2010-03-24 09:43:00 +00006 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01007
8Contents:
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.
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -070023 - Read memory barriers vs load speculation.
Paul E. McKenney241e6662011-02-10 16:54:50 -080024 - Transitivity
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +010025
26 (*) Explicit kernel barriers.
27
28 - Compiler barrier.
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -070029 - CPU memory barriers.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +010030 - MMIO write barrier.
31
32 (*) Implicit kernel memory barriers.
33
34 - Locking functions.
35 - Interrupt disabling functions.
David Howells50fa6102009-04-28 15:01:38 +010036 - Sleep and wake-up functions.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +010037 - 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
David Howells90fddab2010-03-24 09:43:00 +000065 (*) Example uses.
66
67 - Circular buffers.
68
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +010069 (*) References.
70
71
72============================
73ABSTRACT MEMORY ACCESS MODEL
74============================
75
76Consider 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
101Each CPU executes a program that generates memory access operations. In the
102abstract CPU, memory operation ordering is very relaxed, and a CPU may actually
103perform the memory operations in any order it likes, provided program causality
104appears to be maintained. Similarly, the compiler may also arrange the
105instructions it emits in any order it likes, provided it doesn't affect the
106apparent operation of the program.
107
108So in the above diagram, the effects of the memory operations performed by a
109CPU are perceived by the rest of the system as the operations cross the
110interface between the CPU and rest of the system (the dotted lines).
111
112
113For example, consider the following sequence of events:
114
115 CPU 1 CPU 2
116 =============== ===============
117 { A == 1; B == 2 }
118 A = 3; x = A;
119 B = 4; y = B;
120
121The set of accesses as seen by the memory system in the middle can be arranged
122in 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
134and 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
142Furthermore, the stores committed by a CPU to the memory system may not be
143perceived by the loads made by another CPU in the same order as the stores were
144committed.
145
146
147As 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
155There is an obvious data dependency here, as the value loaded into D depends on
156the address retrieved from P by CPU 2. At the end of the sequence, any of the
157following results are possible:
158
159 (Q == &A) and (D == 1)
160 (Q == &B) and (D == 2)
161 (Q == &B) and (D == 4)
162
163Note that CPU 2 will never try and load C into D because the CPU will load P
164into Q before issuing the load of *Q.
165
166
167DEVICE OPERATIONS
168-----------------
169
170Some devices present their control interfaces as collections of memory
171locations, but the order in which the control registers are accessed is very
172important. For instance, imagine an ethernet card with a set of internal
173registers that are accessed through an address port register (A) and a data
174port register (D). To read internal register 5, the following code might then
175be used:
176
177 *A = 5;
178 x = *D;
179
180but 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
185the second of which will almost certainly result in a malfunction, since it set
186the address _after_ attempting to read the register.
187
188
189GUARANTEES
190----------
191
192There 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
197 Q = P; D = *Q;
198
199 the CPU will issue the following memory operations:
200
201 Q = LOAD P, D = LOAD *Q
202
203 and always in that order.
204
205 (*) Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will appear to be
206 ordered within that CPU. This means that for:
207
208 a = *X; *X = b;
209
210 the CPU will only issue the following sequence of memory operations:
211
212 a = LOAD *X, STORE *X = b
213
214 And for:
215
216 *X = c; d = *X;
217
218 the CPU will only issue:
219
220 STORE *X = c, d = LOAD *X
221
Matt LaPlantefa00e7e2006-11-30 04:55:36 +0100222 (Loads and stores overlap if they are targeted at overlapping pieces of
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100223 memory).
224
225And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
226
227 (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued
228 in the order given. This means that for:
229
230 X = *A; Y = *B; *D = Z;
231
232 we may get any of the following sequences:
233
234 X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z
235 X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B
236 Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z
237 Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A
238 STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B
239 STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A
240
241 (*) It _must_ be assumed that overlapping memory accesses may be merged or
242 discarded. This means that for:
243
244 X = *A; Y = *(A + 4);
245
246 we may get any one of the following sequences:
247
248 X = LOAD *A; Y = LOAD *(A + 4);
249 Y = LOAD *(A + 4); X = LOAD *A;
250 {X, Y} = LOAD {*A, *(A + 4) };
251
252 And for:
253
254 *A = X; Y = *A;
255
256 we may get either of:
257
258 STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A;
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700259 STORE *A = Y = X;
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100260
261
262=========================
263WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS?
264=========================
265
266As can be seen above, independent memory operations are effectively performed
267in random order, but this can be a problem for CPU-CPU interaction and for I/O.
268What is required is some way of intervening to instruct the compiler and the
269CPU to restrict the order.
270
271Memory barriers are such interventions. They impose a perceived partial
David Howells2b948952006-06-25 05:48:49 -0700272ordering over the memory operations on either side of the barrier.
273
274Such enforcement is important because the CPUs and other devices in a system
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -0700275can use a variety of tricks to improve performance, including reordering,
David Howells2b948952006-06-25 05:48:49 -0700276deferral and combination of memory operations; speculative loads; speculative
277branch prediction and various types of caching. Memory barriers are used to
278override or suppress these tricks, allowing the code to sanely control the
279interaction of multiple CPUs and/or devices.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100280
281
282VARIETIES OF MEMORY BARRIER
283---------------------------
284
285Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
286
287 (1) Write (or store) memory barriers.
288
289 A write memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the STORE operations
290 specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all the STORE
291 operations specified after the barrier with respect to the other
292 components of the system.
293
294 A write barrier is a partial ordering on stores only; it is not required
295 to have any effect on loads.
296
David Howells6bc39272006-06-25 05:49:22 -0700297 A CPU can be viewed as committing a sequence of store operations to the
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100298 memory system as time progresses. All stores before a write barrier will
299 occur in the sequence _before_ all the stores after the write barrier.
300
301 [!] Note that write barriers should normally be paired with read or data
302 dependency barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
303
304
305 (2) Data dependency barriers.
306
307 A data dependency barrier is a weaker form of read barrier. In the case
308 where two loads are performed such that the second depends on the result
309 of the first (eg: the first load retrieves the address to which the second
310 load will be directed), a data dependency barrier would be required to
311 make sure that the target of the second load is updated before the address
312 obtained by the first load is accessed.
313
314 A data dependency barrier is a partial ordering on interdependent loads
315 only; it is not required to have any effect on stores, independent loads
316 or overlapping loads.
317
318 As mentioned in (1), the other CPUs in the system can be viewed as
319 committing sequences of stores to the memory system that the CPU being
320 considered can then perceive. A data dependency barrier issued by the CPU
321 under consideration guarantees that for any load preceding it, if that
322 load touches one of a sequence of stores from another CPU, then by the
323 time the barrier completes, the effects of all the stores prior to that
324 touched by the load will be perceptible to any loads issued after the data
325 dependency barrier.
326
327 See the "Examples of memory barrier sequences" subsection for diagrams
328 showing the ordering constraints.
329
330 [!] Note that the first load really has to have a _data_ dependency and
331 not a control dependency. If the address for the second load is dependent
332 on the first load, but the dependency is through a conditional rather than
333 actually loading the address itself, then it's a _control_ dependency and
334 a full read barrier or better is required. See the "Control dependencies"
335 subsection for more information.
336
337 [!] Note that data dependency barriers should normally be paired with
338 write barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
339
340
341 (3) Read (or load) memory barriers.
342
343 A read barrier is a data dependency barrier plus a guarantee that all the
344 LOAD operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before
345 all the LOAD operations specified after the barrier with respect to the
346 other components of the system.
347
348 A read barrier is a partial ordering on loads only; it is not required to
349 have any effect on stores.
350
351 Read memory barriers imply data dependency barriers, and so can substitute
352 for them.
353
354 [!] Note that read barriers should normally be paired with write barriers;
355 see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
356
357
358 (4) General memory barriers.
359
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700360 A general memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the LOAD and STORE
361 operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all
362 the LOAD and STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to
363 the other components of the system.
364
365 A general memory barrier is a partial ordering over both loads and stores.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100366
367 General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so
368 can substitute for either.
369
370
371And a couple of implicit varieties:
372
373 (5) LOCK operations.
374
375 This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory
376 operations after the LOCK operation will appear to happen after the LOCK
377 operation with respect to the other components of the system.
378
379 Memory operations that occur before a LOCK operation may appear to happen
380 after it completes.
381
382 A LOCK operation should almost always be paired with an UNLOCK operation.
383
384
385 (6) UNLOCK operations.
386
387 This also acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all
388 memory operations before the UNLOCK operation will appear to happen before
389 the UNLOCK operation with respect to the other components of the system.
390
391 Memory operations that occur after an UNLOCK operation may appear to
392 happen before it completes.
393
394 LOCK and UNLOCK operations are guaranteed to appear with respect to each
395 other strictly in the order specified.
396
397 The use of LOCK and UNLOCK operations generally precludes the need for
398 other sorts of memory barrier (but note the exceptions mentioned in the
399 subsection "MMIO write barrier").
400
401
402Memory barriers are only required where there's a possibility of interaction
403between two CPUs or between a CPU and a device. If it can be guaranteed that
404there won't be any such interaction in any particular piece of code, then
405memory barriers are unnecessary in that piece of code.
406
407
408Note that these are the _minimum_ guarantees. Different architectures may give
409more substantial guarantees, but they may _not_ be relied upon outside of arch
410specific code.
411
412
413WHAT MAY NOT BE ASSUMED ABOUT MEMORY BARRIERS?
414----------------------------------------------
415
416There are certain things that the Linux kernel memory barriers do not guarantee:
417
418 (*) There is no guarantee that any of the memory accesses specified before a
419 memory barrier will be _complete_ by the completion of a memory barrier
420 instruction; the barrier can be considered to draw a line in that CPU's
421 access queue that accesses of the appropriate type may not cross.
422
423 (*) There is no guarantee that issuing a memory barrier on one CPU will have
424 any direct effect on another CPU or any other hardware in the system. The
425 indirect effect will be the order in which the second CPU sees the effects
426 of the first CPU's accesses occur, but see the next point:
427
David Howells6bc39272006-06-25 05:49:22 -0700428 (*) There is no guarantee that a CPU will see the correct order of effects
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100429 from a second CPU's accesses, even _if_ the second CPU uses a memory
430 barrier, unless the first CPU _also_ uses a matching memory barrier (see
431 the subsection on "SMP Barrier Pairing").
432
433 (*) There is no guarantee that some intervening piece of off-the-CPU
434 hardware[*] will not reorder the memory accesses. CPU cache coherency
435 mechanisms should propagate the indirect effects of a memory barrier
436 between CPUs, but might not do so in order.
437
438 [*] For information on bus mastering DMA and coherency please read:
439
Randy Dunlap4b5ff462008-03-10 17:16:32 -0700440 Documentation/PCI/pci.txt
Paul Bolle395cf962011-08-15 02:02:26 +0200441 Documentation/DMA-API-HOWTO.txt
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100442 Documentation/DMA-API.txt
443
444
445DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS
446------------------------
447
448The usage requirements of data dependency barriers are a little subtle, and
449it's not always obvious that they're needed. To illustrate, consider the
450following sequence of events:
451
452 CPU 1 CPU 2
453 =============== ===============
454 { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
455 B = 4;
456 <write barrier>
457 P = &B
458 Q = P;
459 D = *Q;
460
461There's a clear data dependency here, and it would seem that by the end of the
462sequence, Q must be either &A or &B, and that:
463
464 (Q == &A) implies (D == 1)
465 (Q == &B) implies (D == 4)
466
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -0700467But! CPU 2's perception of P may be updated _before_ its perception of B, thus
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100468leading to the following situation:
469
470 (Q == &B) and (D == 2) ????
471
472Whilst this may seem like a failure of coherency or causality maintenance, it
473isn't, and this behaviour can be observed on certain real CPUs (such as the DEC
474Alpha).
475
David Howells2b948952006-06-25 05:48:49 -0700476To deal with this, a data dependency barrier or better must be inserted
477between the address load and the data load:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100478
479 CPU 1 CPU 2
480 =============== ===============
481 { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
482 B = 4;
483 <write barrier>
484 P = &B
485 Q = P;
486 <data dependency barrier>
487 D = *Q;
488
489This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the
490third possibility from arising.
491
492[!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on
493machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes
494even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache
495lines. The pointer P might be stored in an odd-numbered cache line, and the
496variable B might be stored in an even-numbered cache line. Then, if the
497even-numbered bank of the reading CPU's cache is extremely busy while the
498odd-numbered bank is idle, one can see the new value of the pointer P (&B),
David Howells6bc39272006-06-25 05:49:22 -0700499but the old value of the variable B (2).
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100500
501
502Another example of where data dependency barriers might by required is where a
503number is read from memory and then used to calculate the index for an array
504access:
505
506 CPU 1 CPU 2
507 =============== ===============
508 { M[0] == 1, M[1] == 2, M[3] = 3, P == 0, Q == 3 }
509 M[1] = 4;
510 <write barrier>
511 P = 1
512 Q = P;
513 <data dependency barrier>
514 D = M[Q];
515
516
517The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system, for example.
518See rcu_dereference() in include/linux/rcupdate.h. This permits the current
519target of an RCU'd pointer to be replaced with a new modified target, without
520the replacement target appearing to be incompletely initialised.
521
522See also the subsection on "Cache Coherency" for a more thorough example.
523
524
525CONTROL DEPENDENCIES
526--------------------
527
528A control dependency requires a full read memory barrier, not simply a data
529dependency barrier to make it work correctly. Consider the following bit of
530code:
531
532 q = &a;
533 if (p)
534 q = &b;
535 <data dependency barrier>
536 x = *q;
537
538This will not have the desired effect because there is no actual data
539dependency, but rather a control dependency that the CPU may short-circuit by
540attempting to predict the outcome in advance. In such a case what's actually
541required is:
542
543 q = &a;
544 if (p)
545 q = &b;
546 <read barrier>
547 x = *q;
548
549
550SMP BARRIER PAIRING
551-------------------
552
553When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
554always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
555
556A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier or read
557barrier, though a general barrier would also be viable. Similarly a read
558barrier or a data dependency barrier should always be paired with at least an
559write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
560
561 CPU 1 CPU 2
562 =============== ===============
563 a = 1;
564 <write barrier>
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700565 b = 2; x = b;
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100566 <read barrier>
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700567 y = a;
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100568
569Or:
570
571 CPU 1 CPU 2
572 =============== ===============================
573 a = 1;
574 <write barrier>
575 b = &a; x = b;
576 <data dependency barrier>
577 y = *x;
578
579Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
580the "weaker" type.
581
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700582[!] Note that the stores before the write barrier would normally be expected to
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -0700583match the loads after the read barrier or the data dependency barrier, and vice
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700584versa:
585
586 CPU 1 CPU 2
587 =============== ===============
588 a = 1; }---- --->{ v = c
589 b = 2; } \ / { w = d
590 <write barrier> \ <read barrier>
591 c = 3; } / \ { x = a;
592 d = 4; }---- --->{ y = b;
593
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100594
595EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
596------------------------------------
597
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -0700598Firstly, write barriers act as partial orderings on store operations.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100599Consider the following sequence of events:
600
601 CPU 1
602 =======================
603 STORE A = 1
604 STORE B = 2
605 STORE C = 3
606 <write barrier>
607 STORE D = 4
608 STORE E = 5
609
610This sequence of events is committed to the memory coherence system in an order
611that the rest of the system might perceive as the unordered set of { STORE A,
Adrian Bunk80f72282006-06-30 18:27:16 +0200612STORE B, STORE C } all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100613}:
614
615 +-------+ : :
616 | | +------+
617 | |------>| C=3 | } /\
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -0700618 | | : +------+ }----- \ -----> Events perceptible to
619 | | : | A=1 | } \/ the rest of the system
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100620 | | : +------+ }
621 | CPU 1 | : | B=2 | }
622 | | +------+ }
623 | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww } <--- At this point the write barrier
624 | | +------+ } requires all stores prior to the
625 | | : | E=5 | } barrier to be committed before
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -0700626 | | : +------+ } further stores may take place
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100627 | |------>| D=4 | }
628 | | +------+
629 +-------+ : :
630 |
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700631 | Sequence in which stores are committed to the
632 | memory system by CPU 1
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100633 V
634
635
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -0700636Secondly, data dependency barriers act as partial orderings on data-dependent
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100637loads. Consider the following sequence of events:
638
639 CPU 1 CPU 2
640 ======================= =======================
David Howellsc14038c2006-04-10 22:54:24 -0700641 { B = 7; X = 9; Y = 8; C = &Y }
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100642 STORE A = 1
643 STORE B = 2
644 <write barrier>
645 STORE C = &B LOAD X
646 STORE D = 4 LOAD C (gets &B)
647 LOAD *C (reads B)
648
649Without intervention, CPU 2 may perceive the events on CPU 1 in some
650effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
651
652 +-------+ : : : :
653 | | +------+ +-------+ | Sequence of update
654 | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 | | of perception on
655 | | : +------+ \ +-------+ | CPU 2
656 | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y | V
657 | | +------+ | +-------+
658 | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : :
659 | | +------+ | : :
660 | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+
661 | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | |
662 | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| |
663 | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
664 +-------+ : : | : : | |
665 | : : | |
666 | : : | CPU 2 |
667 | +-------+ | |
668 Apparently incorrect ---> | | B->7 |------>| |
669 perception of B (!) | +-------+ | |
670 | : : | |
671 | +-------+ | |
672 The load of X holds ---> \ | X->9 |------>| |
673 up the maintenance \ +-------+ | |
674 of coherence of B ----->| B->2 | +-------+
675 +-------+
676 : :
677
678
679In the above example, CPU 2 perceives that B is 7, despite the load of *C
Paolo Ornati670e9f32006-10-03 22:57:56 +0200680(which would be B) coming after the LOAD of C.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100681
682If, however, a data dependency barrier were to be placed between the load of C
David Howellsc14038c2006-04-10 22:54:24 -0700683and the load of *C (ie: B) on CPU 2:
684
685 CPU 1 CPU 2
686 ======================= =======================
687 { B = 7; X = 9; Y = 8; C = &Y }
688 STORE A = 1
689 STORE B = 2
690 <write barrier>
691 STORE C = &B LOAD X
692 STORE D = 4 LOAD C (gets &B)
693 <data dependency barrier>
694 LOAD *C (reads B)
695
696then the following will occur:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100697
698 +-------+ : : : :
699 | | +------+ +-------+
700 | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 |
701 | | : +------+ \ +-------+
702 | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y |
703 | | +------+ | +-------+
704 | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : :
705 | | +------+ | : :
706 | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+
707 | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | |
708 | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| |
709 | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
710 +-------+ : : | : : | |
711 | : : | |
712 | : : | CPU 2 |
713 | +-------+ | |
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700714 | | X->9 |------>| |
715 | +-------+ | |
716 Makes sure all effects ---> \ ddddddddddddddddd | |
717 prior to the store of C \ +-------+ | |
718 are perceptible to ----->| B->2 |------>| |
719 subsequent loads +-------+ | |
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100720 : : +-------+
721
722
723And thirdly, a read barrier acts as a partial order on loads. Consider the
724following sequence of events:
725
726 CPU 1 CPU 2
727 ======================= =======================
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700728 { A = 0, B = 9 }
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100729 STORE A=1
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100730 <write barrier>
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700731 STORE B=2
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100732 LOAD B
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700733 LOAD A
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100734
735Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in
736some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
737
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700738 +-------+ : : : :
739 | | +------+ +-------+
740 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
741 | | +------+ \ +-------+
742 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
743 | | +------+ | +-------+
744 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
745 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
746 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
747 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
748 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
749 | | A->0 |------>| |
750 | +-------+ | |
751 | : : +-------+
752 \ : :
753 \ +-------+
754 ---->| A->1 |
755 +-------+
756 : :
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100757
758
David Howells6bc39272006-06-25 05:49:22 -0700759If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of B and the
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700760load of A on CPU 2:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100761
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -0700762 CPU 1 CPU 2
763 ======================= =======================
764 { A = 0, B = 9 }
765 STORE A=1
766 <write barrier>
767 STORE B=2
768 LOAD B
769 <read barrier>
770 LOAD A
771
772then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be perceived correctly by CPU
7732:
774
775 +-------+ : : : :
776 | | +------+ +-------+
777 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
778 | | +------+ \ +-------+
779 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
780 | | +------+ | +-------+
781 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
782 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
783 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
784 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
785 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
786 | : : | |
787 | : : | |
788 At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
789 barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | |
790 prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| |
791 to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | |
792 : : +-------+
793
794
795To illustrate this more completely, consider what could happen if the code
796contained a load of A either side of the read barrier:
797
798 CPU 1 CPU 2
799 ======================= =======================
800 { A = 0, B = 9 }
801 STORE A=1
802 <write barrier>
803 STORE B=2
804 LOAD B
805 LOAD A [first load of A]
806 <read barrier>
807 LOAD A [second load of A]
808
809Even though the two loads of A both occur after the load of B, they may both
810come up with different values:
811
812 +-------+ : : : :
813 | | +------+ +-------+
814 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
815 | | +------+ \ +-------+
816 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
817 | | +------+ | +-------+
818 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
819 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
820 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
821 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
822 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
823 | : : | |
824 | : : | |
825 | +-------+ | |
826 | | A->0 |------>| 1st |
827 | +-------+ | |
828 At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
829 barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | |
830 prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| 2nd |
831 to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | |
832 : : +-------+
833
834
835But it may be that the update to A from CPU 1 becomes perceptible to CPU 2
836before the read barrier completes anyway:
837
838 +-------+ : : : :
839 | | +------+ +-------+
840 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
841 | | +------+ \ +-------+
842 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
843 | | +------+ | +-------+
844 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
845 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
846 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
847 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
848 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
849 | : : | |
850 \ : : | |
851 \ +-------+ | |
852 ---->| A->1 |------>| 1st |
853 +-------+ | |
854 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
855 +-------+ | |
856 | A->1 |------>| 2nd |
857 +-------+ | |
858 : : +-------+
859
860
861The guarantee is that the second load will always come up with A == 1 if the
862load of B came up with B == 2. No such guarantee exists for the first load of
863A; that may come up with either A == 0 or A == 1.
864
865
866READ MEMORY BARRIERS VS LOAD SPECULATION
867----------------------------------------
868
869Many CPUs speculate with loads: that is they see that they will need to load an
870item from memory, and they find a time where they're not using the bus for any
871other loads, and so do the load in advance - even though they haven't actually
872got to that point in the instruction execution flow yet. This permits the
873actual load instruction to potentially complete immediately because the CPU
874already has the value to hand.
875
876It may turn out that the CPU didn't actually need the value - perhaps because a
877branch circumvented the load - in which case it can discard the value or just
878cache it for later use.
879
880Consider:
881
882 CPU 1 CPU 2
883 ======================= =======================
884 LOAD B
885 DIVIDE } Divide instructions generally
886 DIVIDE } take a long time to perform
887 LOAD A
888
889Which might appear as this:
890
891 : : +-------+
892 +-------+ | |
893 --->| B->2 |------>| |
894 +-------+ | CPU 2 |
895 : :DIVIDE | |
896 +-------+ | |
897 The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
898 division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
899 LOAD of A : : ~ | |
900 : :DIVIDE | |
901 : : ~ | |
902 Once the divisions are complete --> : : ~-->| |
903 the CPU can then perform the : : | |
904 LOAD with immediate effect : : +-------+
905
906
907Placing a read barrier or a data dependency barrier just before the second
908load:
909
910 CPU 1 CPU 2
911 ======================= =======================
912 LOAD B
913 DIVIDE
914 DIVIDE
915 <read barrier>
916 LOAD A
917
918will force any value speculatively obtained to be reconsidered to an extent
919dependent on the type of barrier used. If there was no change made to the
920speculated memory location, then the speculated value will just be used:
921
922 : : +-------+
923 +-------+ | |
924 --->| B->2 |------>| |
925 +-------+ | CPU 2 |
926 : :DIVIDE | |
927 +-------+ | |
928 The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
929 division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
930 LOAD of A : : ~ | |
931 : :DIVIDE | |
932 : : ~ | |
933 : : ~ | |
934 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~ | |
935 : : ~ | |
936 : : ~-->| |
937 : : | |
938 : : +-------+
939
940
941but if there was an update or an invalidation from another CPU pending, then
942the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded:
943
944 : : +-------+
945 +-------+ | |
946 --->| B->2 |------>| |
947 +-------+ | CPU 2 |
948 : :DIVIDE | |
949 +-------+ | |
950 The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
951 division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
952 LOAD of A : : ~ | |
953 : :DIVIDE | |
954 : : ~ | |
955 : : ~ | |
956 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
957 +-------+ | |
958 The speculation is discarded ---> --->| A->1 |------>| |
959 and an updated value is +-------+ | |
960 retrieved : : +-------+
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +0100961
962
Paul E. McKenney241e6662011-02-10 16:54:50 -0800963TRANSITIVITY
964------------
965
966Transitivity is a deeply intuitive notion about ordering that is not
967always provided by real computer systems. The following example
968demonstrates transitivity (also called "cumulativity"):
969
970 CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
971 ======================= ======================= =======================
972 { X = 0, Y = 0 }
973 STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1
974 <general barrier> <general barrier>
975 LOAD Y LOAD X
976
977Suppose that CPU 2's load from X returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0.
978This indicates that CPU 2's load from X in some sense follows CPU 1's
979store to X and that CPU 2's load from Y in some sense preceded CPU 3's
980store to Y. The question is then "Can CPU 3's load from X return 0?"
981
982Because CPU 2's load from X in some sense came after CPU 1's store, it
983is natural to expect that CPU 3's load from X must therefore return 1.
984This expectation is an example of transitivity: if a load executing on
985CPU A follows a load from the same variable executing on CPU B, then
986CPU A's load must either return the same value that CPU B's load did,
987or must return some later value.
988
989In the Linux kernel, use of general memory barriers guarantees
990transitivity. Therefore, in the above example, if CPU 2's load from X
991returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0, then CPU 3's load from X must
992also return 1.
993
994However, transitivity is -not- guaranteed for read or write barriers.
995For example, suppose that CPU 2's general barrier in the above example
996is changed to a read barrier as shown below:
997
998 CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
999 ======================= ======================= =======================
1000 { X = 0, Y = 0 }
1001 STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1
1002 <read barrier> <general barrier>
1003 LOAD Y LOAD X
1004
1005This substitution destroys transitivity: in this example, it is perfectly
1006legal for CPU 2's load from X to return 1, its load from Y to return 0,
1007and CPU 3's load from X to return 0.
1008
1009The key point is that although CPU 2's read barrier orders its pair
1010of loads, it does not guarantee to order CPU 1's store. Therefore, if
1011this example runs on a system where CPUs 1 and 2 share a store buffer
1012or a level of cache, CPU 2 might have early access to CPU 1's writes.
1013General barriers are therefore required to ensure that all CPUs agree
1014on the combined order of CPU 1's and CPU 2's accesses.
1015
1016To reiterate, if your code requires transitivity, use general barriers
1017throughout.
1018
1019
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001020========================
1021EXPLICIT KERNEL BARRIERS
1022========================
1023
1024The Linux kernel has a variety of different barriers that act at different
1025levels:
1026
1027 (*) Compiler barrier.
1028
1029 (*) CPU memory barriers.
1030
1031 (*) MMIO write barrier.
1032
1033
1034COMPILER BARRIER
1035----------------
1036
1037The Linux kernel has an explicit compiler barrier function that prevents the
1038compiler from moving the memory accesses either side of it to the other side:
1039
1040 barrier();
1041
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001042This is a general barrier - lesser varieties of compiler barrier do not exist.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001043
1044The compiler barrier has no direct effect on the CPU, which may then reorder
1045things however it wishes.
1046
1047
1048CPU MEMORY BARRIERS
1049-------------------
1050
1051The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers:
1052
1053 TYPE MANDATORY SMP CONDITIONAL
1054 =============== ======================= ===========================
1055 GENERAL mb() smp_mb()
1056 WRITE wmb() smp_wmb()
1057 READ rmb() smp_rmb()
1058 DATA DEPENDENCY read_barrier_depends() smp_read_barrier_depends()
1059
1060
Nick Piggin73f10282008-05-14 06:35:11 +02001061All memory barriers except the data dependency barriers imply a compiler
1062barrier. Data dependencies do not impose any additional compiler ordering.
1063
1064Aside: In the case of data dependencies, the compiler would be expected to
1065issue the loads in the correct order (eg. `a[b]` would have to load the value
1066of b before loading a[b]), however there is no guarantee in the C specification
1067that the compiler may not speculate the value of b (eg. is equal to 1) and load
1068a before b (eg. tmp = a[1]; if (b != 1) tmp = a[b]; ). There is also the
1069problem of a compiler reloading b after having loaded a[b], thus having a newer
1070copy of b than a[b]. A consensus has not yet been reached about these problems,
1071however the ACCESS_ONCE macro is a good place to start looking.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001072
1073SMP memory barriers are reduced to compiler barriers on uniprocessor compiled
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001074systems because it is assumed that a CPU will appear to be self-consistent,
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001075and will order overlapping accesses correctly with respect to itself.
1076
1077[!] Note that SMP memory barriers _must_ be used to control the ordering of
1078references to shared memory on SMP systems, though the use of locking instead
1079is sufficient.
1080
1081Mandatory barriers should not be used to control SMP effects, since mandatory
1082barriers unnecessarily impose overhead on UP systems. They may, however, be
1083used to control MMIO effects on accesses through relaxed memory I/O windows.
1084These are required even on non-SMP systems as they affect the order in which
1085memory operations appear to a device by prohibiting both the compiler and the
1086CPU from reordering them.
1087
1088
1089There are some more advanced barrier functions:
1090
1091 (*) set_mb(var, value)
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001092
Oleg Nesterov75b2bd52006-11-08 17:44:38 -08001093 This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts a full memory
Steven Rostedtf92213b2006-07-14 16:05:01 -04001094 barrier after it, depending on the function. It isn't guaranteed to
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001095 insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation.
1096
1097
1098 (*) smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
1099 (*) smp_mb__after_atomic_dec();
1100 (*) smp_mb__before_atomic_inc();
1101 (*) smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
1102
1103 These are for use with atomic add, subtract, increment and decrement
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001104 functions that don't return a value, especially when used for reference
1105 counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001106
1107 As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead
1108 and then decrements the object's reference count:
1109
1110 obj->dead = 1;
1111 smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
1112 atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
1113
1114 This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set
1115 *before* the reference counter is decremented.
1116
1117 See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information. See the "Atomic
1118 operations" subsection for information on where to use these.
1119
1120
1121 (*) smp_mb__before_clear_bit(void);
1122 (*) smp_mb__after_clear_bit(void);
1123
1124 These are for use similar to the atomic inc/dec barriers. These are
1125 typically used for bitwise unlocking operations, so care must be taken as
1126 there are no implicit memory barriers here either.
1127
1128 Consider implementing an unlock operation of some nature by clearing a
1129 locking bit. The clear_bit() would then need to be barriered like this:
1130
1131 smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
1132 clear_bit( ... );
1133
1134 This prevents memory operations before the clear leaking to after it. See
1135 the subsection on "Locking Functions" with reference to UNLOCK operation
1136 implications.
1137
1138 See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information. See the "Atomic
1139 operations" subsection for information on where to use these.
1140
1141
1142MMIO WRITE BARRIER
1143------------------
1144
1145The Linux kernel also has a special barrier for use with memory-mapped I/O
1146writes:
1147
1148 mmiowb();
1149
1150This is a variation on the mandatory write barrier that causes writes to weakly
1151ordered I/O regions to be partially ordered. Its effects may go beyond the
1152CPU->Hardware interface and actually affect the hardware at some level.
1153
1154See the subsection "Locks vs I/O accesses" for more information.
1155
1156
1157===============================
1158IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
1159===============================
1160
1161Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -07001162which are locking and scheduling functions.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001163
1164This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may
1165provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside
1166of arch specific code.
1167
1168
1169LOCKING FUNCTIONS
1170-----------------
1171
1172The Linux kernel has a number of locking constructs:
1173
1174 (*) spin locks
1175 (*) R/W spin locks
1176 (*) mutexes
1177 (*) semaphores
1178 (*) R/W semaphores
1179 (*) RCU
1180
1181In all cases there are variants on "LOCK" operations and "UNLOCK" operations
1182for each construct. These operations all imply certain barriers:
1183
1184 (1) LOCK operation implication:
1185
1186 Memory operations issued after the LOCK will be completed after the LOCK
1187 operation has completed.
1188
1189 Memory operations issued before the LOCK may be completed after the LOCK
1190 operation has completed.
1191
1192 (2) UNLOCK operation implication:
1193
1194 Memory operations issued before the UNLOCK will be completed before the
1195 UNLOCK operation has completed.
1196
1197 Memory operations issued after the UNLOCK may be completed before the
1198 UNLOCK operation has completed.
1199
1200 (3) LOCK vs LOCK implication:
1201
1202 All LOCK operations issued before another LOCK operation will be completed
1203 before that LOCK operation.
1204
1205 (4) LOCK vs UNLOCK implication:
1206
1207 All LOCK operations issued before an UNLOCK operation will be completed
1208 before the UNLOCK operation.
1209
1210 All UNLOCK operations issued before a LOCK operation will be completed
1211 before the LOCK operation.
1212
1213 (5) Failed conditional LOCK implication:
1214
1215 Certain variants of the LOCK operation may fail, either due to being
1216 unable to get the lock immediately, or due to receiving an unblocked
1217 signal whilst asleep waiting for the lock to become available. Failed
1218 locks do not imply any sort of barrier.
1219
1220Therefore, from (1), (2) and (4) an UNLOCK followed by an unconditional LOCK is
1221equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not.
1222
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001223[!] Note: one of the consequences of LOCKs and UNLOCKs being only one-way
1224 barriers is that the effects of instructions outside of a critical section
1225 may seep into the inside of the critical section.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001226
David Howells670bd952006-06-10 09:54:12 -07001227A LOCK followed by an UNLOCK may not be assumed to be full memory barrier
1228because it is possible for an access preceding the LOCK to happen after the
1229LOCK, and an access following the UNLOCK to happen before the UNLOCK, and the
1230two accesses can themselves then cross:
1231
1232 *A = a;
1233 LOCK
1234 UNLOCK
1235 *B = b;
1236
1237may occur as:
1238
1239 LOCK, STORE *B, STORE *A, UNLOCK
1240
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001241Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled
1242systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve
1243anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined
1244with interrupt disabling operations.
1245
1246See also the section on "Inter-CPU locking barrier effects".
1247
1248
1249As an example, consider the following:
1250
1251 *A = a;
1252 *B = b;
1253 LOCK
1254 *C = c;
1255 *D = d;
1256 UNLOCK
1257 *E = e;
1258 *F = f;
1259
1260The following sequence of events is acceptable:
1261
1262 LOCK, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, UNLOCK
1263
1264 [+] Note that {*F,*A} indicates a combined access.
1265
1266But none of the following are:
1267
1268 {*F,*A}, *B, LOCK, *C, *D, UNLOCK, *E
1269 *A, *B, *C, LOCK, *D, UNLOCK, *E, *F
1270 *A, *B, LOCK, *C, UNLOCK, *D, *E, *F
1271 *B, LOCK, *C, *D, UNLOCK, {*F,*A}, *E
1272
1273
1274
1275INTERRUPT DISABLING FUNCTIONS
1276-----------------------------
1277
1278Functions that disable interrupts (LOCK equivalent) and enable interrupts
1279(UNLOCK equivalent) will act as compiler barriers only. So if memory or I/O
1280barriers are required in such a situation, they must be provided from some
1281other means.
1282
1283
David Howells50fa6102009-04-28 15:01:38 +01001284SLEEP AND WAKE-UP FUNCTIONS
1285---------------------------
1286
1287Sleeping and waking on an event flagged in global data can be viewed as an
1288interaction between two pieces of data: the task state of the task waiting for
1289the event and the global data used to indicate the event. To make sure that
1290these appear to happen in the right order, the primitives to begin the process
1291of going to sleep, and the primitives to initiate a wake up imply certain
1292barriers.
1293
1294Firstly, the sleeper normally follows something like this sequence of events:
1295
1296 for (;;) {
1297 set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
1298 if (event_indicated)
1299 break;
1300 schedule();
1301 }
1302
1303A general memory barrier is interpolated automatically by set_current_state()
1304after it has altered the task state:
1305
1306 CPU 1
1307 ===============================
1308 set_current_state();
1309 set_mb();
1310 STORE current->state
1311 <general barrier>
1312 LOAD event_indicated
1313
1314set_current_state() may be wrapped by:
1315
1316 prepare_to_wait();
1317 prepare_to_wait_exclusive();
1318
1319which therefore also imply a general memory barrier after setting the state.
1320The whole sequence above is available in various canned forms, all of which
1321interpolate the memory barrier in the right place:
1322
1323 wait_event();
1324 wait_event_interruptible();
1325 wait_event_interruptible_exclusive();
1326 wait_event_interruptible_timeout();
1327 wait_event_killable();
1328 wait_event_timeout();
1329 wait_on_bit();
1330 wait_on_bit_lock();
1331
1332
1333Secondly, code that performs a wake up normally follows something like this:
1334
1335 event_indicated = 1;
1336 wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
1337
1338or:
1339
1340 event_indicated = 1;
1341 wake_up_process(event_daemon);
1342
1343A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they wake
1344something up. The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so sits
1345between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
1346
1347 CPU 1 CPU 2
1348 =============================== ===============================
1349 set_current_state(); STORE event_indicated
1350 set_mb(); wake_up();
1351 STORE current->state <write barrier>
1352 <general barrier> STORE current->state
1353 LOAD event_indicated
1354
1355The available waker functions include:
1356
1357 complete();
1358 wake_up();
1359 wake_up_all();
1360 wake_up_bit();
1361 wake_up_interruptible();
1362 wake_up_interruptible_all();
1363 wake_up_interruptible_nr();
1364 wake_up_interruptible_poll();
1365 wake_up_interruptible_sync();
1366 wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll();
1367 wake_up_locked();
1368 wake_up_locked_poll();
1369 wake_up_nr();
1370 wake_up_poll();
1371 wake_up_process();
1372
1373
1374[!] Note that the memory barriers implied by the sleeper and the waker do _not_
1375order multiple stores before the wake-up with respect to loads of those stored
1376values after the sleeper has called set_current_state(). For instance, if the
1377sleeper does:
1378
1379 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
1380 if (event_indicated)
1381 break;
1382 __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
1383 do_something(my_data);
1384
1385and the waker does:
1386
1387 my_data = value;
1388 event_indicated = 1;
1389 wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
1390
1391there's no guarantee that the change to event_indicated will be perceived by
1392the sleeper as coming after the change to my_data. In such a circumstance, the
1393code on both sides must interpolate its own memory barriers between the
1394separate data accesses. Thus the above sleeper ought to do:
1395
1396 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
1397 if (event_indicated) {
1398 smp_rmb();
1399 do_something(my_data);
1400 }
1401
1402and the waker should do:
1403
1404 my_data = value;
1405 smp_wmb();
1406 event_indicated = 1;
1407 wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
1408
1409
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001410MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS
1411-----------------------
1412
1413Other functions that imply barriers:
1414
1415 (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
1416
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001417
1418=================================
1419INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS
1420=================================
1421
1422On SMP systems locking primitives give a more substantial form of barrier: one
1423that does affect memory access ordering on other CPUs, within the context of
1424conflict on any particular lock.
1425
1426
1427LOCKS VS MEMORY ACCESSES
1428------------------------
1429
Aneesh Kumar79afecf2006-05-15 09:44:36 -07001430Consider the following: the system has a pair of spinlocks (M) and (Q), and
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001431three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
1432
1433 CPU 1 CPU 2
1434 =============================== ===============================
1435 *A = a; *E = e;
1436 LOCK M LOCK Q
1437 *B = b; *F = f;
1438 *C = c; *G = g;
1439 UNLOCK M UNLOCK Q
1440 *D = d; *H = h;
1441
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001442Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU 3 will see the accesses to *A
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001443through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks
1444on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see:
1445
1446 *E, LOCK M, LOCK Q, *G, *C, *F, *A, *B, UNLOCK Q, *D, *H, UNLOCK M
1447
1448But it won't see any of:
1449
1450 *B, *C or *D preceding LOCK M
1451 *A, *B or *C following UNLOCK M
1452 *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK Q
1453 *E, *F or *G following UNLOCK Q
1454
1455
1456However, if the following occurs:
1457
1458 CPU 1 CPU 2
1459 =============================== ===============================
1460 *A = a;
1461 LOCK M [1]
1462 *B = b;
1463 *C = c;
1464 UNLOCK M [1]
1465 *D = d; *E = e;
1466 LOCK M [2]
1467 *F = f;
1468 *G = g;
1469 UNLOCK M [2]
1470 *H = h;
1471
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001472CPU 3 might see:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001473
1474 *E, LOCK M [1], *C, *B, *A, UNLOCK M [1],
1475 LOCK M [2], *H, *F, *G, UNLOCK M [2], *D
1476
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001477But assuming CPU 1 gets the lock first, CPU 3 won't see any of:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001478
1479 *B, *C, *D, *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [1]
1480 *A, *B or *C following UNLOCK M [1]
1481 *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [2]
1482 *A, *B, *C, *E, *F or *G following UNLOCK M [2]
1483
1484
1485LOCKS VS I/O ACCESSES
1486---------------------
1487
1488Under certain circumstances (especially involving NUMA), I/O accesses within
1489two spinlocked sections on two different CPUs may be seen as interleaved by the
1490PCI bridge, because the PCI bridge does not necessarily participate in the
1491cache-coherence protocol, and is therefore incapable of issuing the required
1492read memory barriers.
1493
1494For example:
1495
1496 CPU 1 CPU 2
1497 =============================== ===============================
1498 spin_lock(Q)
1499 writel(0, ADDR)
1500 writel(1, DATA);
1501 spin_unlock(Q);
1502 spin_lock(Q);
1503 writel(4, ADDR);
1504 writel(5, DATA);
1505 spin_unlock(Q);
1506
1507may be seen by the PCI bridge as follows:
1508
1509 STORE *ADDR = 0, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = 1, STORE *DATA = 5
1510
1511which would probably cause the hardware to malfunction.
1512
1513
1514What is necessary here is to intervene with an mmiowb() before dropping the
1515spinlock, for example:
1516
1517 CPU 1 CPU 2
1518 =============================== ===============================
1519 spin_lock(Q)
1520 writel(0, ADDR)
1521 writel(1, DATA);
1522 mmiowb();
1523 spin_unlock(Q);
1524 spin_lock(Q);
1525 writel(4, ADDR);
1526 writel(5, DATA);
1527 mmiowb();
1528 spin_unlock(Q);
1529
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001530this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU 1 appear at the PCI bridge
1531before either of the stores issued on CPU 2.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001532
1533
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001534Furthermore, following a store by a load from the same device obviates the need
1535for the mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001536is performed:
1537
1538 CPU 1 CPU 2
1539 =============================== ===============================
1540 spin_lock(Q)
1541 writel(0, ADDR)
1542 a = readl(DATA);
1543 spin_unlock(Q);
1544 spin_lock(Q);
1545 writel(4, ADDR);
1546 b = readl(DATA);
1547 spin_unlock(Q);
1548
1549
1550See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information.
1551
1552
1553=================================
1554WHERE ARE MEMORY BARRIERS NEEDED?
1555=================================
1556
1557Under normal operation, memory operation reordering is generally not going to
1558be a problem as a single-threaded linear piece of code will still appear to
David Howells50fa6102009-04-28 15:01:38 +01001559work correctly, even if it's in an SMP kernel. There are, however, four
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001560circumstances in which reordering definitely _could_ be a problem:
1561
1562 (*) Interprocessor interaction.
1563
1564 (*) Atomic operations.
1565
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001566 (*) Accessing devices.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001567
1568 (*) Interrupts.
1569
1570
1571INTERPROCESSOR INTERACTION
1572--------------------------
1573
1574When there's a system with more than one processor, more than one CPU in the
1575system may be working on the same data set at the same time. This can cause
1576synchronisation problems, and the usual way of dealing with them is to use
1577locks. Locks, however, are quite expensive, and so it may be preferable to
1578operate without the use of a lock if at all possible. In such a case
1579operations that affect both CPUs may have to be carefully ordered to prevent
1580a malfunction.
1581
1582Consider, for example, the R/W semaphore slow path. Here a waiting process is
1583queued on the semaphore, by virtue of it having a piece of its stack linked to
1584the semaphore's list of waiting processes:
1585
1586 struct rw_semaphore {
1587 ...
1588 spinlock_t lock;
1589 struct list_head waiters;
1590 };
1591
1592 struct rwsem_waiter {
1593 struct list_head list;
1594 struct task_struct *task;
1595 };
1596
1597To wake up a particular waiter, the up_read() or up_write() functions have to:
1598
1599 (1) read the next pointer from this waiter's record to know as to where the
1600 next waiter record is;
1601
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001602 (2) read the pointer to the waiter's task structure;
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001603
1604 (3) clear the task pointer to tell the waiter it has been given the semaphore;
1605
1606 (4) call wake_up_process() on the task; and
1607
1608 (5) release the reference held on the waiter's task struct.
1609
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001610In other words, it has to perform this sequence of events:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001611
1612 LOAD waiter->list.next;
1613 LOAD waiter->task;
1614 STORE waiter->task;
1615 CALL wakeup
1616 RELEASE task
1617
1618and if any of these steps occur out of order, then the whole thing may
1619malfunction.
1620
1621Once it has queued itself and dropped the semaphore lock, the waiter does not
1622get the lock again; it instead just waits for its task pointer to be cleared
1623before proceeding. Since the record is on the waiter's stack, this means that
1624if the task pointer is cleared _before_ the next pointer in the list is read,
1625another CPU might start processing the waiter and might clobber the waiter's
1626stack before the up*() function has a chance to read the next pointer.
1627
1628Consider then what might happen to the above sequence of events:
1629
1630 CPU 1 CPU 2
1631 =============================== ===============================
1632 down_xxx()
1633 Queue waiter
1634 Sleep
1635 up_yyy()
1636 LOAD waiter->task;
1637 STORE waiter->task;
1638 Woken up by other event
1639 <preempt>
1640 Resume processing
1641 down_xxx() returns
1642 call foo()
1643 foo() clobbers *waiter
1644 </preempt>
1645 LOAD waiter->list.next;
1646 --- OOPS ---
1647
1648This could be dealt with using the semaphore lock, but then the down_xxx()
1649function has to needlessly get the spinlock again after being woken up.
1650
1651The way to deal with this is to insert a general SMP memory barrier:
1652
1653 LOAD waiter->list.next;
1654 LOAD waiter->task;
1655 smp_mb();
1656 STORE waiter->task;
1657 CALL wakeup
1658 RELEASE task
1659
1660In this case, the barrier makes a guarantee that all memory accesses before the
1661barrier will appear to happen before all the memory accesses after the barrier
1662with respect to the other CPUs on the system. It does _not_ guarantee that all
1663the memory accesses before the barrier will be complete by the time the barrier
1664instruction itself is complete.
1665
1666On a UP system - where this wouldn't be a problem - the smp_mb() is just a
1667compiler barrier, thus making sure the compiler emits the instructions in the
David Howells6bc39272006-06-25 05:49:22 -07001668right order without actually intervening in the CPU. Since there's only one
1669CPU, that CPU's dependency ordering logic will take care of everything else.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001670
1671
1672ATOMIC OPERATIONS
1673-----------------
1674
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001675Whilst they are technically interprocessor interaction considerations, atomic
1676operations are noted specially as some of them imply full memory barriers and
1677some don't, but they're very heavily relied on as a group throughout the
1678kernel.
1679
1680Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and returns information
1681about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional general memory barrier
Nick Piggin26333572007-10-18 03:06:39 -07001682(smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation (with the exception of
1683explicit lock operations, described later). These include:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001684
1685 xchg();
1686 cmpxchg();
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001687 atomic_cmpxchg();
1688 atomic_inc_return();
1689 atomic_dec_return();
1690 atomic_add_return();
1691 atomic_sub_return();
1692 atomic_inc_and_test();
1693 atomic_dec_and_test();
1694 atomic_sub_and_test();
1695 atomic_add_negative();
Oleg Nesterov02c608c2008-02-24 00:03:29 +03001696 atomic_add_unless(); /* when succeeds (returns 1) */
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001697 test_and_set_bit();
1698 test_and_clear_bit();
1699 test_and_change_bit();
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001700
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001701These are used for such things as implementing LOCK-class and UNLOCK-class
1702operations and adjusting reference counters towards object destruction, and as
1703such the implicit memory barrier effects are necessary.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001704
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001705
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001706The following operations are potential problems as they do _not_ imply memory
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001707barriers, but might be used for implementing such things as UNLOCK-class
1708operations:
1709
1710 atomic_set();
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001711 set_bit();
1712 clear_bit();
1713 change_bit();
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001714
1715With these the appropriate explicit memory barrier should be used if necessary
1716(smp_mb__before_clear_bit() for instance).
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001717
1718
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001719The following also do _not_ imply memory barriers, and so may require explicit
1720memory barriers under some circumstances (smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() for
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001721instance):
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001722
1723 atomic_add();
1724 atomic_sub();
1725 atomic_inc();
1726 atomic_dec();
1727
1728If they're used for statistics generation, then they probably don't need memory
1729barriers, unless there's a coupling between statistical data.
1730
1731If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime,
1732they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count
1733will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold
1734sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary.
1735
1736If they're used for constructing a lock of some description, then they probably
1737do need memory barriers as a lock primitive generally has to do things in a
1738specific order.
1739
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001740Basically, each usage case has to be carefully considered as to whether memory
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001741barriers are needed or not.
1742
Nick Piggin26333572007-10-18 03:06:39 -07001743The following operations are special locking primitives:
1744
1745 test_and_set_bit_lock();
1746 clear_bit_unlock();
1747 __clear_bit_unlock();
1748
1749These implement LOCK-class and UNLOCK-class operations. These should be used in
1750preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives, because
1751their implementations can be optimised on many architectures.
1752
David Howellsdbc87002006-04-10 22:54:23 -07001753[!] Note that special memory barrier primitives are available for these
1754situations because on some CPUs the atomic instructions used imply full memory
1755barriers, and so barrier instructions are superfluous in conjunction with them,
1756and in such cases the special barrier primitives will be no-ops.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001757
1758See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information.
1759
1760
1761ACCESSING DEVICES
1762-----------------
1763
1764Many devices can be memory mapped, and so appear to the CPU as if they're just
1765a set of memory locations. To control such a device, the driver usually has to
1766make the right memory accesses in exactly the right order.
1767
1768However, having a clever CPU or a clever compiler creates a potential problem
1769in that the carefully sequenced accesses in the driver code won't reach the
1770device in the requisite order if the CPU or the compiler thinks it is more
1771efficient to reorder, combine or merge accesses - something that would cause
1772the device to malfunction.
1773
1774Inside of the Linux kernel, I/O should be done through the appropriate accessor
1775routines - such as inb() or writel() - which know how to make such accesses
1776appropriately sequential. Whilst this, for the most part, renders the explicit
1777use of memory barriers unnecessary, there are a couple of situations where they
1778might be needed:
1779
1780 (1) On some systems, I/O stores are not strongly ordered across all CPUs, and
1781 so for _all_ general drivers locks should be used and mmiowb() must be
1782 issued prior to unlocking the critical section.
1783
1784 (2) If the accessor functions are used to refer to an I/O memory window with
1785 relaxed memory access properties, then _mandatory_ memory barriers are
1786 required to enforce ordering.
1787
1788See Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl for more information.
1789
1790
1791INTERRUPTS
1792----------
1793
1794A driver may be interrupted by its own interrupt service routine, and thus the
1795two parts of the driver may interfere with each other's attempts to control or
1796access the device.
1797
1798This may be alleviated - at least in part - by disabling local interrupts (a
1799form of locking), such that the critical operations are all contained within
1800the interrupt-disabled section in the driver. Whilst the driver's interrupt
1801routine is executing, the driver's core may not run on the same CPU, and its
1802interrupt is not permitted to happen again until the current interrupt has been
1803handled, thus the interrupt handler does not need to lock against that.
1804
1805However, consider a driver that was talking to an ethernet card that sports an
1806address register and a data register. If that driver's core talks to the card
1807under interrupt-disablement and then the driver's interrupt handler is invoked:
1808
1809 LOCAL IRQ DISABLE
1810 writew(ADDR, 3);
1811 writew(DATA, y);
1812 LOCAL IRQ ENABLE
1813 <interrupt>
1814 writew(ADDR, 4);
1815 q = readw(DATA);
1816 </interrupt>
1817
1818The store to the data register might happen after the second store to the
1819address register if ordering rules are sufficiently relaxed:
1820
1821 STORE *ADDR = 3, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = y, q = LOAD *DATA
1822
1823
1824If ordering rules are relaxed, it must be assumed that accesses done inside an
1825interrupt disabled section may leak outside of it and may interleave with
1826accesses performed in an interrupt - and vice versa - unless implicit or
1827explicit barriers are used.
1828
1829Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such
1830sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O
1831registers that form implicit I/O barriers. If this isn't sufficient then an
1832mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly.
1833
1834
1835A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines
1836running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other. If such a case is
1837likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering.
1838
1839
1840==========================
1841KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS
1842==========================
1843
1844When accessing I/O memory, drivers should use the appropriate accessor
1845functions:
1846
1847 (*) inX(), outX():
1848
1849 These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but
1850 that's primarily a CPU-specific concept. The i386 and x86_64 processors do
1851 indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
1852 CPUs don't have such a concept.
1853
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001854 The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept which - on such
1855 CPUs as i386 and x86_64 - readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O
David Howells6bc39272006-06-25 05:49:22 -07001856 space. However, it may also be mapped as a virtual I/O space in the CPU's
1857 memory map, particularly on those CPUs that don't support alternate I/O
1858 spaces.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001859
1860 Accesses to this space may be fully synchronous (as on i386), but
1861 intermediary bridges (such as the PCI host bridge) may not fully honour
1862 that.
1863
1864 They are guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to each other.
1865
1866 They are not guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to other types of
1867 memory and I/O operation.
1868
1869 (*) readX(), writeX():
1870
1871 Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with
1872 respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics
1873 defined for the memory window through which they're accessing. On later
1874 i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the
1875 MTRR registers.
1876
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001877 Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined,
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001878 provided they're not accessing a prefetchable device.
1879
1880 However, intermediary hardware (such as a PCI bridge) may indulge in
1881 deferral if it so wishes; to flush a store, a load from the same location
1882 is preferred[*], but a load from the same device or from configuration
1883 space should suffice for PCI.
1884
1885 [*] NOTE! attempting to load from the same location as was written to may
1886 cause a malfunction - consider the 16550 Rx/Tx serial registers for
1887 example.
1888
1889 Used with prefetchable I/O memory, an mmiowb() barrier may be required to
1890 force stores to be ordered.
1891
1892 Please refer to the PCI specification for more information on interactions
1893 between PCI transactions.
1894
1895 (*) readX_relaxed()
1896
1897 These are similar to readX(), but are not guaranteed to be ordered in any
1898 way. Be aware that there is no I/O read barrier available.
1899
1900 (*) ioreadX(), iowriteX()
1901
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001902 These will perform appropriately for the type of access they're actually
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001903 doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX().
1904
1905
1906========================================
1907ASSUMED MINIMUM EXECUTION ORDERING MODEL
1908========================================
1909
1910It has to be assumed that the conceptual CPU is weakly-ordered but that it will
1911maintain the appearance of program causality with respect to itself. Some CPUs
1912(such as i386 or x86_64) are more constrained than others (such as powerpc or
1913frv), and so the most relaxed case (namely DEC Alpha) must be assumed outside
1914of arch-specific code.
1915
1916This means that it must be considered that the CPU will execute its instruction
1917stream in any order it feels like - or even in parallel - provided that if an
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07001918instruction in the stream depends on an earlier instruction, then that
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01001919earlier instruction must be sufficiently complete[*] before the later
1920instruction may proceed; in other words: provided that the appearance of
1921causality is maintained.
1922
1923 [*] Some instructions have more than one effect - such as changing the
1924 condition codes, changing registers or changing memory - and different
1925 instructions may depend on different effects.
1926
1927A CPU may also discard any instruction sequence that winds up having no
1928ultimate effect. For example, if two adjacent instructions both load an
1929immediate value into the same register, the first may be discarded.
1930
1931
1932Similarly, it has to be assumed that compiler might reorder the instruction
1933stream in any way it sees fit, again provided the appearance of causality is
1934maintained.
1935
1936
1937============================
1938THE EFFECTS OF THE CPU CACHE
1939============================
1940
1941The way cached memory operations are perceived across the system is affected to
1942a certain extent by the caches that lie between CPUs and memory, and by the
1943memory coherence system that maintains the consistency of state in the system.
1944
1945As far as the way a CPU interacts with another part of the system through the
1946caches goes, the memory system has to include the CPU's caches, and memory
1947barriers for the most part act at the interface between the CPU and its cache
1948(memory barriers logically act on the dotted line in the following diagram):
1949
1950 <--- CPU ---> : <----------- Memory ----------->
1951 :
1952 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+
1953 | | | | : | | | | +--------+
1954 | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | | | |
1955 | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | |
1956 | | | Queue | : | | | |--->| Memory |
1957 | | | | : | | | | | |
1958 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | |
1959 : | Cache | +--------+
1960 : | Coherency |
1961 : | Mechanism | +--------+
1962 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | |
1963 | | | | : | | | | | |
1964 | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | |--->| Device |
1965 | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | |
1966 | | | Queue | : | | | | | |
1967 | | | | : | | | | +--------+
1968 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+
1969 :
1970 :
1971
1972Although any particular load or store may not actually appear outside of the
1973CPU that issued it since it may have been satisfied within the CPU's own cache,
1974it will still appear as if the full memory access had taken place as far as the
1975other CPUs are concerned since the cache coherency mechanisms will migrate the
1976cacheline over to the accessing CPU and propagate the effects upon conflict.
1977
1978The CPU core may execute instructions in any order it deems fit, provided the
1979expected program causality appears to be maintained. Some of the instructions
1980generate load and store operations which then go into the queue of memory
1981accesses to be performed. The core may place these in the queue in any order
1982it wishes, and continue execution until it is forced to wait for an instruction
1983to complete.
1984
1985What memory barriers are concerned with is controlling the order in which
1986accesses cross from the CPU side of things to the memory side of things, and
1987the order in which the effects are perceived to happen by the other observers
1988in the system.
1989
1990[!] Memory barriers are _not_ needed within a given CPU, as CPUs always see
1991their own loads and stores as if they had happened in program order.
1992
1993[!] MMIO or other device accesses may bypass the cache system. This depends on
1994the properties of the memory window through which devices are accessed and/or
1995the use of any special device communication instructions the CPU may have.
1996
1997
1998CACHE COHERENCY
1999---------------
2000
2001Life isn't quite as simple as it may appear above, however: for while the
2002caches are expected to be coherent, there's no guarantee that that coherency
2003will be ordered. This means that whilst changes made on one CPU will
2004eventually become visible on all CPUs, there's no guarantee that they will
2005become apparent in the same order on those other CPUs.
2006
2007
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002008Consider dealing with a system that has a pair of CPUs (1 & 2), each of which
2009has a pair of parallel data caches (CPU 1 has A/B, and CPU 2 has C/D):
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002010
2011 :
2012 : +--------+
2013 : +---------+ | |
2014 +--------+ : +--->| Cache A |<------->| |
2015 | | : | +---------+ | |
2016 | CPU 1 |<---+ | |
2017 | | : | +---------+ | |
2018 +--------+ : +--->| Cache B |<------->| |
2019 : +---------+ | |
2020 : | Memory |
2021 : +---------+ | System |
2022 +--------+ : +--->| Cache C |<------->| |
2023 | | : | +---------+ | |
2024 | CPU 2 |<---+ | |
2025 | | : | +---------+ | |
2026 +--------+ : +--->| Cache D |<------->| |
2027 : +---------+ | |
2028 : +--------+
2029 :
2030
2031Imagine the system has the following properties:
2032
2033 (*) an odd-numbered cache line may be in cache A, cache C or it may still be
2034 resident in memory;
2035
2036 (*) an even-numbered cache line may be in cache B, cache D or it may still be
2037 resident in memory;
2038
2039 (*) whilst the CPU core is interrogating one cache, the other cache may be
2040 making use of the bus to access the rest of the system - perhaps to
2041 displace a dirty cacheline or to do a speculative load;
2042
2043 (*) each cache has a queue of operations that need to be applied to that cache
2044 to maintain coherency with the rest of the system;
2045
2046 (*) the coherency queue is not flushed by normal loads to lines already
2047 present in the cache, even though the contents of the queue may
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002048 potentially affect those loads.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002049
2050Imagine, then, that two writes are made on the first CPU, with a write barrier
2051between them to guarantee that they will appear to reach that CPU's caches in
2052the requisite order:
2053
2054 CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT
2055 =============== =============== =======================================
2056 u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
2057 v = 2;
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002058 smp_wmb(); Make sure change to v is visible before
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002059 change to p
2060 <A:modify v=2> v is now in cache A exclusively
2061 p = &v;
2062 <B:modify p=&v> p is now in cache B exclusively
2063
2064The write memory barrier forces the other CPUs in the system to perceive that
2065the local CPU's caches have apparently been updated in the correct order. But
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002066now imagine that the second CPU wants to read those values:
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002067
2068 CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT
2069 =============== =============== =======================================
2070 ...
2071 q = p;
2072 x = *q;
2073
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002074The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in the expected order, as the
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002075cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches whilst
2076the update to the cacheline holding v is delayed in the other of the second
2077CPU's caches by some other cache event:
2078
2079 CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT
2080 =============== =============== =======================================
2081 u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
2082 v = 2;
2083 smp_wmb();
2084 <A:modify v=2> <C:busy>
2085 <C:queue v=2>
Aneesh Kumar79afecf2006-05-15 09:44:36 -07002086 p = &v; q = p;
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002087 <D:request p>
2088 <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v>
2089 <D:read p>
2090 x = *q;
2091 <C:read *q> Reads from v before v updated in cache
2092 <C:unbusy>
2093 <C:commit v=2>
2094
2095Basically, whilst both cachelines will be updated on CPU 2 eventually, there's
2096no guarantee that, without intervention, the order of update will be the same
2097as that committed on CPU 1.
2098
2099
2100To intervene, we need to interpolate a data dependency barrier or a read
2101barrier between the loads. This will force the cache to commit its coherency
2102queue before processing any further requests:
2103
2104 CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT
2105 =============== =============== =======================================
2106 u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
2107 v = 2;
2108 smp_wmb();
2109 <A:modify v=2> <C:busy>
2110 <C:queue v=2>
Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso3fda9822006-10-19 23:28:19 -07002111 p = &v; q = p;
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002112 <D:request p>
2113 <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v>
2114 <D:read p>
2115 smp_read_barrier_depends()
2116 <C:unbusy>
2117 <C:commit v=2>
2118 x = *q;
2119 <C:read *q> Reads from v after v updated in cache
2120
2121
2122This sort of problem can be encountered on DEC Alpha processors as they have a
2123split cache that improves performance by making better use of the data bus.
2124Whilst most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory
2125access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on.
2126
2127Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various
Matt LaPlante3f6dee92006-10-03 22:45:33 +02002128cachelets for normal memory accesses. The semantics of the Alpha removes the
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002129need for coordination in the absence of memory barriers.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002130
2131
2132CACHE COHERENCY VS DMA
2133----------------------
2134
2135Not all systems maintain cache coherency with respect to devices doing DMA. In
2136such cases, a device attempting DMA may obtain stale data from RAM because
2137dirty cache lines may be resident in the caches of various CPUs, and may not
2138have been written back to RAM yet. To deal with this, the appropriate part of
2139the kernel must flush the overlapping bits of cache on each CPU (and maybe
2140invalidate them as well).
2141
2142In addition, the data DMA'd to RAM by a device may be overwritten by dirty
2143cache lines being written back to RAM from a CPU's cache after the device has
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002144installed its own data, or cache lines present in the CPU's cache may simply
2145obscure the fact that RAM has been updated, until at such time as the cacheline
2146is discarded from the CPU's cache and reloaded. To deal with this, the
2147appropriate part of the kernel must invalidate the overlapping bits of the
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002148cache on each CPU.
2149
2150See Documentation/cachetlb.txt for more information on cache management.
2151
2152
2153CACHE COHERENCY VS MMIO
2154-----------------------
2155
2156Memory mapped I/O usually takes place through memory locations that are part of
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002157a window in the CPU's memory space that has different properties assigned than
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002158the usual RAM directed window.
2159
2160Amongst these properties is usually the fact that such accesses bypass the
2161caching entirely and go directly to the device buses. This means MMIO accesses
2162may, in effect, overtake accesses to cached memory that were emitted earlier.
2163A memory barrier isn't sufficient in such a case, but rather the cache must be
2164flushed between the cached memory write and the MMIO access if the two are in
2165any way dependent.
2166
2167
2168=========================
2169THE THINGS CPUS GET UP TO
2170=========================
2171
2172A programmer might take it for granted that the CPU will perform memory
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002173operations in exactly the order specified, so that if the CPU is, for example,
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002174given the following piece of code to execute:
2175
2176 a = *A;
2177 *B = b;
2178 c = *C;
2179 d = *D;
2180 *E = e;
2181
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002182they would then expect that the CPU will complete the memory operation for each
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002183instruction before moving on to the next one, leading to a definite sequence of
2184operations as seen by external observers in the system:
2185
2186 LOAD *A, STORE *B, LOAD *C, LOAD *D, STORE *E.
2187
2188
2189Reality is, of course, much messier. With many CPUs and compilers, the above
2190assumption doesn't hold because:
2191
2192 (*) loads are more likely to need to be completed immediately to permit
2193 execution progress, whereas stores can often be deferred without a
2194 problem;
2195
2196 (*) loads may be done speculatively, and the result discarded should it prove
2197 to have been unnecessary;
2198
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002199 (*) loads may be done speculatively, leading to the result having been fetched
2200 at the wrong time in the expected sequence of events;
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002201
2202 (*) the order of the memory accesses may be rearranged to promote better use
2203 of the CPU buses and caches;
2204
2205 (*) loads and stores may be combined to improve performance when talking to
2206 memory or I/O hardware that can do batched accesses of adjacent locations,
2207 thus cutting down on transaction setup costs (memory and PCI devices may
2208 both be able to do this); and
2209
2210 (*) the CPU's data cache may affect the ordering, and whilst cache-coherency
2211 mechanisms may alleviate this - once the store has actually hit the cache
2212 - there's no guarantee that the coherency management will be propagated in
2213 order to other CPUs.
2214
2215So what another CPU, say, might actually observe from the above piece of code
2216is:
2217
2218 LOAD *A, ..., LOAD {*C,*D}, STORE *E, STORE *B
2219
2220 (Where "LOAD {*C,*D}" is a combined load)
2221
2222
2223However, it is guaranteed that a CPU will be self-consistent: it will see its
2224_own_ accesses appear to be correctly ordered, without the need for a memory
2225barrier. For instance with the following code:
2226
2227 U = *A;
2228 *A = V;
2229 *A = W;
2230 X = *A;
2231 *A = Y;
2232 Z = *A;
2233
2234and assuming no intervention by an external influence, it can be assumed that
2235the final result will appear to be:
2236
2237 U == the original value of *A
2238 X == W
2239 Z == Y
2240 *A == Y
2241
2242The code above may cause the CPU to generate the full sequence of memory
2243accesses:
2244
2245 U=LOAD *A, STORE *A=V, STORE *A=W, X=LOAD *A, STORE *A=Y, Z=LOAD *A
2246
2247in that order, but, without intervention, the sequence may have almost any
2248combination of elements combined or discarded, provided the program's view of
2249the world remains consistent.
2250
2251The compiler may also combine, discard or defer elements of the sequence before
2252the CPU even sees them.
2253
2254For instance:
2255
2256 *A = V;
2257 *A = W;
2258
2259may be reduced to:
2260
2261 *A = W;
2262
2263since, without a write barrier, it can be assumed that the effect of the
2264storage of V to *A is lost. Similarly:
2265
2266 *A = Y;
2267 Z = *A;
2268
2269may, without a memory barrier, be reduced to:
2270
2271 *A = Y;
2272 Z = Y;
2273
2274and the LOAD operation never appear outside of the CPU.
2275
2276
2277AND THEN THERE'S THE ALPHA
2278--------------------------
2279
2280The DEC Alpha CPU is one of the most relaxed CPUs there is. Not only that,
2281some versions of the Alpha CPU have a split data cache, permitting them to have
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002282two semantically-related cache lines updated at separate times. This is where
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002283the data dependency barrier really becomes necessary as this synchronises both
2284caches with the memory coherence system, thus making it seem like pointer
2285changes vs new data occur in the right order.
2286
Jarek Poplawski81fc6322007-05-23 13:58:20 -07002287The Alpha defines the Linux kernel's memory barrier model.
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002288
2289See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above.
2290
2291
David Howells90fddab2010-03-24 09:43:00 +00002292============
2293EXAMPLE USES
2294============
2295
2296CIRCULAR BUFFERS
2297----------------
2298
2299Memory barriers can be used to implement circular buffering without the need
2300of a lock to serialise the producer with the consumer. See:
2301
2302 Documentation/circular-buffers.txt
2303
2304for details.
2305
2306
David Howells108b42b2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01002307==========
2308REFERENCES
2309==========
2310
2311Alpha AXP Architecture Reference Manual, Second Edition (Sites & Witek,
2312Digital Press)
2313 Chapter 5.2: Physical Address Space Characteristics
2314 Chapter 5.4: Caches and Write Buffers
2315 Chapter 5.5: Data Sharing
2316 Chapter 5.6: Read/Write Ordering
2317
2318AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming
2319 Chapter 7.1: Memory-Access Ordering
2320 Chapter 7.4: Buffering and Combining Memory Writes
2321
2322IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3:
2323System Programming Guide
2324 Chapter 7.1: Locked Atomic Operations
2325 Chapter 7.2: Memory Ordering
2326 Chapter 7.4: Serializing Instructions
2327
2328The SPARC Architecture Manual, Version 9
2329 Chapter 8: Memory Models
2330 Appendix D: Formal Specification of the Memory Models
2331 Appendix J: Programming with the Memory Models
2332
2333UltraSPARC Programmer Reference Manual
2334 Chapter 5: Memory Accesses and Cacheability
2335 Chapter 15: Sparc-V9 Memory Models
2336
2337UltraSPARC III Cu User's Manual
2338 Chapter 9: Memory Models
2339
2340UltraSPARC IIIi Processor User's Manual
2341 Chapter 8: Memory Models
2342
2343UltraSPARC Architecture 2005
2344 Chapter 9: Memory
2345 Appendix D: Formal Specifications of the Memory Models
2346
2347UltraSPARC T1 Supplement to the UltraSPARC Architecture 2005
2348 Chapter 8: Memory Models
2349 Appendix F: Caches and Cache Coherency
2350
2351Solaris Internals, Core Kernel Architecture, p63-68:
2352 Chapter 3.3: Hardware Considerations for Locks and
2353 Synchronization
2354
2355Unix Systems for Modern Architectures, Symmetric Multiprocessing and Caching
2356for Kernel Programmers:
2357 Chapter 13: Other Memory Models
2358
2359Intel Itanium Architecture Software Developer's Manual: Volume 1:
2360 Section 2.6: Speculation
2361 Section 4.4: Memory Access