[PATCH] w1: Userspace communication protocol over connector.

[linux-2.6-omap-h63xx.git] / Documentation / memory-barriers.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 92f0056d928c1f5ff485e250a93a843bb60058bc..4710845dbac4fb663e35fcf0056499614a06e56b 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Contents:
      - Control dependencies.
      - SMP barrier pairing.
      - Examples of memory barrier sequences.
      - Control dependencies.
      - SMP barrier pairing.
      - Examples of memory barrier sequences.

+     - Read memory barriers vs load speculation.

 
  (*) Explicit kernel barriers.
 
 
  (*) Explicit kernel barriers.
 


@@ -248,7 +249,7 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
      we may get either of:
 
        STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A;
      we may get either of:
 
        STORE *A = X; Y = LOAD *A;

-       STORE *A = Y;
+       STORE *A = Y = X;

 
 
 =========================
 
 
 =========================


@@ -344,9 +345,12 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
 
  (4) General memory barriers.
 
 
  (4) General memory barriers.
 

-     A general memory barrier is a combination of both a read memory barrier
-     and a write memory barrier.  It is a partial ordering over both loads and
-     stores.
+     A general memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the LOAD and STORE
+     operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all
+     the LOAD and STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to
+     the other components of the system.
+
+     A general memory barrier is a partial ordering over both loads and stores.

 
      General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so
      can substitute for either.
 
      General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so
      can substitute for either.


@@ -546,9 +550,9 @@ write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
        =============== ===============
        a = 1;
        <write barrier>
        =============== ===============
        a = 1;
        <write barrier>

-       b = 2;          x = a;
+       b = 2;          x = b;

                        <read barrier>
                        <read barrier>

-                       y = b;
+                       y = a;

 
 Or:
 
 
 Or:
 


@@ -563,6 +567,18 @@ Or:
 Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
 the "weaker" type.
 
 Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
 the "weaker" type.
 

+[!] Note that the stores before the write barrier would normally be expected to
+match the loads after the read barrier or data dependency barrier, and vice
+versa:
+
+       CPU 1                           CPU 2
+       ===============                 ===============
+       a = 1;           }----   --->{  v = c
+       b = 2;           }    \ /    {  w = d
+       <write barrier>        \        <read barrier>
+       c = 3;           }    / \    {  x = a;
+       d = 4;           }----   --->{  y = b;
+

 
 EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
 ------------------------------------
 
 EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
 ------------------------------------


@@ -600,8 +616,8 @@ STORE B, STORE C } all occuring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
        |       |       +------+
        +-------+       :      :
                           |
        |       |       +------+
        +-------+       :      :
                           |

-                          | Sequence in which stores committed to memory system
-                          | by CPU 1
+                          | Sequence in which stores are committed to the
+                          | memory system by CPU 1

                           V
 
 
                           V
 
 


@@ -683,14 +699,12 @@ then the following will occur:
                                       |        :       :       |       |
                                       |        :       :       | CPU 2 |
                                       |        +-------+       |       |
                                       |        :       :       |       |
                                       |        :       :       | CPU 2 |
                                       |        +-------+       |       |

-                                       \       | X->9  |------>|       |
-                                        \      +-------+       |       |
-                                         ----->| B->2  |       |       |
-                                               +-------+       |       |
-            Makes sure all effects --->    ddddddddddddddddd   |       |
-            prior to the store of C            +-------+       |       |
-            are perceptible to                 | B->2  |------>|       |
-            successive loads                   +-------+       |       |
+                                      |        | X->9  |------>|       |
+                                      |        +-------+       |       |
+         Makes sure all effects --->   \   ddddddddddddddddd   |       |
+         prior to the store of C        \      +-------+       |       |
+         are perceptible to              ----->| B->2  |------>|       |
+         subsequent loads                      +-------+       |       |

                                                :       :       +-------+
 
 
                                                :       :       +-------+
 
 


@@ -699,73 +713,239 @@ following sequence of events:
 
        CPU 1                   CPU 2
        ======================= =======================
 
        CPU 1                   CPU 2
        ======================= =======================

+               { A = 0, B = 9 }

        STORE A=1
        STORE A=1

-       STORE B=2
-       STORE C=3

        <write barrier>
        <write barrier>

-       STORE D=4
-       STORE E=5
-                               LOAD A
+       STORE B=2

                                LOAD B
                                LOAD B

-                               LOAD C
-                               LOAD D
-                               LOAD E
+                               LOAD A

 
 Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in
 some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
 
 
 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.
+       +-------+       :      :                :       :
+       |       |       +------+                +-------+
+       |       |------>| A=1  |------      --->| A->0  |
+       |       |       +------+      \         +-------+
+       | CPU 1 |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww   \    --->| B->9  |
+       |       |       +------+        |       +-------+
+       |       |------>| B=2  |---     |       :       :
+       |       |       +------+   \    |       :       :       +-------+
+       +-------+       :      :    \   |       +-------+       |       |
+                                    ---------->| B->2  |------>|       |
+                                       |       +-------+       | CPU 2 |
+                                       |       | A->0  |------>|       |
+                                       |       +-------+       |       |
+                                       |       :       :       +-------+
+                                        \      :       :
+                                         \     +-------+
+                                          ---->| A->1  |
+                                               +-------+
+                                               :       :

 
 

-       +-------+       :      :
-       |       |       +------+
-       |       |------>| 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  |------>|       |
-                                                 +-------+       |       |
-                                                 :       :       +-------+
+
+If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of E and the
+load of A on CPU 2:
+
+       CPU 1                   CPU 2
+       ======================= =======================
+               { A = 0, B = 9 }
+       STORE A=1
+       <write barrier>
+       STORE B=2
+                               LOAD B
+                               <read barrier>
+                               LOAD A
+
+then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be perceived correctly by CPU
+2:
+
+       +-------+       :      :                :       :
+       |       |       +------+                +-------+
+       |       |------>| A=1  |------      --->| A->0  |
+       |       |       +------+      \         +-------+
+       | CPU 1 |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww   \    --->| B->9  |
+       |       |       +------+        |       +-------+
+       |       |------>| B=2  |---     |       :       :
+       |       |       +------+   \    |       :       :       +-------+
+       +-------+       :      :    \   |       +-------+       |       |
+                                    ---------->| B->2  |------>|       |
+                                       |       +-------+       | CPU 2 |
+                                       |       :       :       |       |
+                                       |       :       :       |       |
+         At this point the read ---->   \  rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr   |       |
+         barrier causes all effects      \     +-------+       |       |
+         prior to the storage of B        ---->| A->1  |------>|       |
+         to be perceptible to CPU 2            +-------+       |       |
+                                               :       :       +-------+
+
+
+To illustrate this more completely, consider what could happen if the code
+contained a load of A either side of the read barrier:
+
+       CPU 1                   CPU 2
+       ======================= =======================
+               { A = 0, B = 9 }
+       STORE A=1
+       <write barrier>
+       STORE B=2
+                               LOAD B
+                               LOAD A [first load of A]
+                               <read barrier>
+                               LOAD A [second load of A]
+
+Even though the two loads of A both occur after the load of B, they may both
+come up with different values:
+
+       +-------+       :      :                :       :
+       |       |       +------+                +-------+
+       |       |------>| A=1  |------      --->| A->0  |
+       |       |       +------+      \         +-------+
+       | CPU 1 |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww   \    --->| B->9  |
+       |       |       +------+        |       +-------+
+       |       |------>| B=2  |---     |       :       :
+       |       |       +------+   \    |       :       :       +-------+
+       +-------+       :      :    \   |       +-------+       |       |
+                                    ---------->| B->2  |------>|       |
+                                       |       +-------+       | CPU 2 |
+                                       |       :       :       |       |
+                                       |       :       :       |       |
+                                       |       +-------+       |       |
+                                       |       | A->0  |------>| 1st   |
+                                       |       +-------+       |       |
+         At this point the read ---->   \  rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr   |       |
+         barrier causes all effects      \     +-------+       |       |
+         prior to the storage of B        ---->| A->1  |------>| 2nd   |
+         to be perceptible to CPU 2            +-------+       |       |
+                                               :       :       +-------+
+
+
+But it may be that the update to A from CPU 1 becomes perceptible to CPU 2
+before the read barrier completes anyway:
+
+       +-------+       :      :                :       :
+       |       |       +------+                +-------+
+       |       |------>| A=1  |------      --->| A->0  |
+       |       |       +------+      \         +-------+
+       | CPU 1 |   wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww   \    --->| B->9  |
+       |       |       +------+        |       +-------+
+       |       |------>| B=2  |---     |       :       :
+       |       |       +------+   \    |       :       :       +-------+
+       +-------+       :      :    \   |       +-------+       |       |
+                                    ---------->| B->2  |------>|       |
+                                       |       +-------+       | CPU 2 |
+                                       |       :       :       |       |
+                                        \      :       :       |       |
+                                         \     +-------+       |       |
+                                          ---->| A->1  |------>| 1st   |
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+                                           rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr   |       |
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+                                               | A->1  |------>| 2nd   |
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+                                               :       :       +-------+
+
+
+The guarantee is that the second load will always come up with A == 1 if the
+load of B came up with B == 2.  No such guarantee exists for the first load of
+A; that may come up with either A == 0 or A == 1.
+
+
+READ MEMORY BARRIERS VS LOAD SPECULATION
+----------------------------------------
+
+Many CPUs speculate with loads: that is they see that they will need to load an
+item from memory, and they find a time where they're not using the bus for any
+other loads, and so do the load in advance - even though they haven't actually
+got to that point in the instruction execution flow yet.  This permits the
+actual load instruction to potentially complete immediately because the CPU
+already has the value to hand.
+
+It may turn out that the CPU didn't actually need the value - perhaps because a
+branch circumvented the load - in which case it can discard the value or just
+cache it for later use.
+
+Consider:
+
+       CPU 1                   CPU 2
+       ======================= =======================
+                               LOAD B
+                               DIVIDE          } Divide instructions generally
+                               DIVIDE          } take a long time to perform
+                               LOAD A
+
+Which might appear as this:
+
+                                               :       :       +-------+
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+                                           --->| B->2  |------>|       |
+                                               +-------+       | CPU 2 |
+                                               :       :DIVIDE |       |
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+       The CPU being busy doing a --->     --->| A->0  |~~~~   |       |
+       division speculates on the              +-------+   ~   |       |
+       LOAD of A                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                               :       :DIVIDE |       |
+                                               :       :   ~   |       |
+       Once the divisions are complete -->     :       :   ~-->|       |
+       the CPU can then perform the            :       :       |       |
+       LOAD with immediate effect              :       :       +-------+
+
+
+Placing a read barrier or a data dependency barrier just before the second
+load:
+
+       CPU 1                   CPU 2
+       ======================= =======================
+                               LOAD B
+                               DIVIDE
+                               DIVIDE
+                               <read barrier>
+                               LOAD A
+
+will force any value speculatively obtained to be reconsidered to an extent
+dependent on the type of barrier used.  If there was no change made to the
+speculated memory location, then the speculated value will just be used:
+
+                                               :       :       +-------+
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+                                           --->| B->2  |------>|       |
+                                               +-------+       | CPU 2 |
+                                               :       :DIVIDE |       |
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+       The CPU being busy doing a --->     --->| A->0  |~~~~   |       |
+       division speculates on the              +-------+   ~   |       |
+       LOAD of A                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                               :       :DIVIDE |       |
+                                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                           rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~   |       |
+                                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                               :       :   ~-->|       |
+                                               :       :       |       |
+                                               :       :       +-------+
+
+
+but if there was an update or an invalidation from another CPU pending, then
+the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded:
+
+                                               :       :       +-------+
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+                                           --->| B->2  |------>|       |
+                                               +-------+       | CPU 2 |
+                                               :       :DIVIDE |       |
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+       The CPU being busy doing a --->     --->| A->0  |~~~~   |       |
+       division speculates on the              +-------+   ~   |       |
+       LOAD of A                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                               :       :DIVIDE |       |
+                                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                               :       :   ~   |       |
+                                           rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr   |       |
+                                               +-------+       |       |
+       The speculation is discarded --->   --->| A->1  |------>|       |
+       and an updated value is                 +-------+       |       |
+       retrieved                               :       :       +-------+

 
 
 ========================
 
 
 ========================


@@ -901,7 +1081,7 @@ IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
 ===============================
 
 Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst
 ===============================
 
 Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst

-which are locking, scheduling and memory allocation functions.
+which are locking and scheduling functions.

 
 This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may
 provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside
 
 This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may
 provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside


@@ -966,6 +1146,20 @@ equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not.
     barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may
     seep into the inside of the critical section.
 
     barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may
     seep into the inside of the critical section.
 

+A LOCK followed by an UNLOCK may not be assumed to be full memory barrier
+because it is possible for an access preceding the LOCK to happen after the
+LOCK, and an access following the UNLOCK to happen before the UNLOCK, and the
+two accesses can themselves then cross:
+
+       *A = a;
+       LOCK
+       UNLOCK
+       *B = b;
+
+may occur as:
+
+       LOCK, STORE *B, STORE *A, UNLOCK
+

 Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled
 systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve
 anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined
 Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled
 systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve
 anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined


@@ -1016,8 +1210,6 @@ Other functions that imply barriers:
 
  (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
 
 
  (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
 

- (*) Memory allocation and release functions imply full memory barriers.
-

 
 =================================
 INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS
 
 =================================
 INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS


@@ -1031,7 +1223,7 @@ conflict on any particular lock.
 LOCKS VS MEMORY ACCESSES
 ------------------------
 
 LOCKS VS MEMORY ACCESSES
 ------------------------
 

-Consider the following: the system has a pair of spinlocks (N) and (Q), and
+Consider the following: the system has a pair of spinlocks (M) and (Q), and

 three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
 
        CPU 1                           CPU 2
 three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
 
        CPU 1                           CPU 2


@@ -1678,7 +1870,7 @@ CPU's caches by some other cache event:
        smp_wmb();
        <A:modify v=2>  <C:busy>
                        <C:queue v=2>
        smp_wmb();
        <A:modify v=2>  <C:busy>
                        <C:queue v=2>

-       p = &b;         q = p;
+       p = &v;         q = p;

                        <D:request p>
        <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v>
                        <D:read p>
                        <D:request p>
        <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v>
                        <D:read p>