Commit f1ab25a3 authored by Paul E. McKenney's avatar Paul E. McKenney
Browse files

memory-barriers: Replace uses of "transitive"



The current version of memory-barriers.txt misuses the term "transitive",
so this commit replaces it with multi-copy atomic, also adding a
definition of this term.
Reported-by: default avatarAlan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
parent d3cf5176
......@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ CONTENTS
- SMP barrier pairing.
- Examples of memory barrier sequences.
- Read memory barriers vs load speculation.
- Transitivity
- Multicopy atomicity.
(*) Explicit kernel barriers.
......@@ -635,6 +635,11 @@ can be used to record rare error conditions and the like, and the CPUs'
naturally occurring ordering prevents such records from being lost.
Note well that the ordering provided by a data dependency is local to
the CPU containing it. See the section on "Multicopy atomicity" for
more information.
The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system,
for example. See rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() in
include/linux/rcupdate.h. This permits the current target of an RCU'd
......@@ -851,38 +856,11 @@ In short, control dependencies apply only to the stores in the then-clause
and else-clause of the if-statement in question (including functions
invoked by those two clauses), not to code following that if-statement.
Finally, control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. This is
demonstrated by two related examples, with the initial values of
'x' and 'y' both being zero:
CPU 0 CPU 1
======================= =======================
r1 = READ_ONCE(x); r2 = READ_ONCE(y);
if (r1 > 0) if (r2 > 0)
WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
assert(!(r1 == 1 && r2 == 1));
The above two-CPU example will never trigger the assert(). However,
if control dependencies guaranteed transitivity (which they do not),
then adding the following CPU would guarantee a related assertion:
CPU 2
=====================
WRITE_ONCE(x, 2);
assert(!(r1 == 2 && r2 == 1 && x == 2)); /* FAILS!!! */
But because control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity, the above
assertion can fail after the combined three-CPU example completes. If you
need the three-CPU example to provide ordering, you will need smp_mb()
between the loads and stores in the CPU 0 and CPU 1 code fragments,
that is, just before or just after the "if" statements. Furthermore,
the original two-CPU example is very fragile and should be avoided.
Note well that the ordering provided by a control dependency is local
to the CPU containing it. See the section on "Multicopy atomicity"
for more information.
These two examples are the LB and WWC litmus tests from this paper:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/ppc-supplemental/test6.pdf and this
site: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppcmem/index.html.
In summary:
......@@ -922,8 +900,8 @@ In summary:
(*) Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.
(*) Control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. If you
need transitivity, use smp_mb().
(*) Control dependencies do -not- provide multicopy atomicity. If you
need all the CPUs to see a given store at the same time, use smp_mb().
(*) Compilers do not understand control dependencies. It is therefore
your job to ensure that they do not break your code.
......@@ -936,13 +914,14 @@ When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair with most
other types of barriers, albeit without transitivity. An acquire barrier
pairs with a release barrier, but both may also pair with other barriers,
including of course general barriers. A write barrier pairs with a data
dependency barrier, a control dependency, an acquire barrier, a release
barrier, a read barrier, or a general barrier. Similarly a read barrier,
control dependency, or a data dependency barrier pairs with a write
barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier, or a general barrier:
other types of barriers, albeit without multicopy atomicity. An acquire
barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also pair with other
barriers, including of course general barriers. A write barrier pairs
with a data dependency barrier, a control dependency, an acquire barrier,
a release barrier, a read barrier, or a general barrier. Similarly a
read barrier, control dependency, or a data dependency barrier pairs
with a write barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier, or a
general barrier:
CPU 1 CPU 2
=============== ===============
......@@ -1359,64 +1338,77 @@ the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded:
retrieved : : +-------+
TRANSITIVITY
------------
MULTICOPY ATOMICITY
--------------------
Multicopy atomicity is a deeply intuitive notion about ordering that is
not always provided by real computer systems, namely that a given store
is visible at the same time to all CPUs, or, alternatively, that all
CPUs agree on the order in which all stores took place. However, use of
full multicopy atomicity would rule out valuable hardware optimizations,
so a weaker form called ``other multicopy atomicity'' instead guarantees
that a given store is observed at the same time by all -other- CPUs. The
remainder of this document discusses this weaker form, but for brevity
will call it simply ``multicopy atomicity''.
Transitivity is a deeply intuitive notion about ordering that is not
always provided by real computer systems. The following example
demonstrates transitivity:
The following example demonstrates multicopy atomicity:
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
======================= ======================= =======================
{ X = 0, Y = 0 }
STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1
<general barrier> <general barrier>
LOAD Y LOAD X
STORE X=1 r1=LOAD X (reads 1) LOAD Y (reads 1)
<general barrier> <read barrier>
STORE Y=r1 LOAD X
Suppose that CPU 2's load from X returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0.
This indicates that CPU 2's load from X in some sense follows CPU 1's
store to X and that CPU 2's load from Y in some sense preceded CPU 3's
store to Y. The question is then "Can CPU 3's load from X return 0?"
Suppose that CPU 2's load from X returns 1 which it then stores to Y and
that CPU 3's load from Y returns 1. This indicates that CPU 2's load
from X in some sense follows CPU 1's store to X and that CPU 2's store
to Y in some sense preceded CPU 3's load from Y. The question is then
"Can CPU 3's load from X return 0?"
Because CPU 2's load from X in some sense came after CPU 1's store, it
Because CPU 3's load from X in some sense came after CPU 2's load, it
is natural to expect that CPU 3's load from X must therefore return 1.
This expectation is an example of transitivity: if a load executing on
CPU A follows a load from the same variable executing on CPU B, then
CPU A's load must either return the same value that CPU B's load did,
or must return some later value.
In the Linux kernel, use of general memory barriers guarantees
transitivity. Therefore, in the above example, if CPU 2's load from X
returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0, then CPU 3's load from X must
also return 1.
However, transitivity is -not- guaranteed for read or write barriers.
For example, suppose that CPU 2's general barrier in the above example
is changed to a read barrier as shown below:
This expectation is an example of multicopy atomicity: if a load executing
on CPU A follows a load from the same variable executing on CPU B, then
an understandable but incorrect expectation is that CPU A's load must
either return the same value that CPU B's load did, or must return some
later value.
In the Linux kernel, the above use of a general memory barrier compensates
for any lack of multicopy atomicity. Therefore, in the above example,
if CPU 2's load from X returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0, and CPU 3's
load from Y returns 1, then CPU 3's load from X must also return 1.
However, dependencies, read barriers, and write barriers are not always
able to compensate for non-multicopy atomicity. For example, suppose
that CPU 2's general barrier is removed from the above example, leaving
only the data dependency shown below:
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
======================= ======================= =======================
{ X = 0, Y = 0 }
STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1
<read barrier> <general barrier>
LOAD Y LOAD X
This substitution destroys transitivity: in this example, it is perfectly
legal for CPU 2's load from X to return 1, its load from Y to return 0,
and CPU 3's load from X to return 0.
The key point is that although CPU 2's read barrier orders its pair
of loads, it does not guarantee to order CPU 1's store. Therefore, if
this example runs on a system where CPUs 1 and 2 share a store buffer
or a level of cache, CPU 2 might have early access to CPU 1's writes.
General barriers are therefore required to ensure that all CPUs agree
on the combined order of CPU 1's and CPU 2's accesses.
General barriers provide "global transitivity", so that all CPUs will
agree on the order of operations. In contrast, a chain of release-acquire
pairs provides only "local transitivity", so that only those CPUs on
the chain are guaranteed to agree on the combined order of the accesses.
For example, switching to C code in deference to Herman Hollerith:
STORE X=1 r1=LOAD X (reads 1) LOAD Y (reads 1)
<data dependency> <read barrier>
STORE Y=r1 LOAD X (reads 0)
This substitution allows non-multicopy atomicity to run rampant: in
this example, it is perfectly legal for CPU 2's load from X to return 1,
CPU 3's load from Y to return 1, and its load from X to return 0.
The key point is that although CPU 2's data dependency orders its load
and store, it does not guarantee to order CPU 1's store. Therefore,
if this example runs on a non-multicopy-atomic system where CPUs 1 and 2
share a store buffer or a level of cache, CPU 2 might have early access
to CPU 1's writes. A general barrier is therefore required to ensure
that all CPUs agree on the combined order of CPU 1's and CPU 2's accesses.
General barriers can compensate not only for non-multicopy atomicity,
but can also generate additional ordering that can ensure that -all-
CPUs will perceive the same order of -all- operations. In contrast, a
chain of release-acquire pairs do not provide this additional ordering,
which means that only those CPUs on the chain are guaranteed to agree
on the combined order of the accesses. For example, switching to C code
in deference to the ghost of Herman Hollerith:
int u, v, x, y, z;
......@@ -1448,9 +1440,9 @@ For example, switching to C code in deference to Herman Hollerith:
r3 = READ_ONCE(u);
}
Because cpu0(), cpu1(), and cpu2() participate in a local transitive
chain of smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() pairs, the following
outcome is prohibited:
Because cpu0(), cpu1(), and cpu2() participate in a chain of
smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() pairs, the following outcome
is prohibited:
r0 == 1 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1
......@@ -1460,9 +1452,9 @@ outcome is prohibited:
r1 == 1 && r5 == 0
However, the transitivity of release-acquire is local to the participating
CPUs and does not apply to cpu3(). Therefore, the following outcome
is possible:
However, the ordering provided by a release-acquire chain is local
to the CPUs participating in that chain and does not apply to cpu3(),
at least aside from stores. Therefore, the following outcome is possible:
r0 == 0 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && r3 == 0 && r4 == 0
......@@ -1490,8 +1482,8 @@ following outcome is possible:
Note that this outcome can happen even on a mythical sequentially
consistent system where nothing is ever reordered.
To reiterate, if your code requires global transitivity, use general
barriers throughout.
To reiterate, if your code requires full ordering of all operations,
use general barriers throughout.
========================
......@@ -3101,6 +3093,9 @@ AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming
Chapter 7.1: Memory-Access Ordering
Chapter 7.4: Buffering and Combining Memory Writes
ARM Architecture Reference Manual (ARMv8, for ARMv8-A architecture profile)
Chapter B2: The AArch64 Application Level Memory Model
IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3:
System Programming Guide
Chapter 7.1: Locked Atomic Operations
......@@ -3112,6 +3107,8 @@ The SPARC Architecture Manual, Version 9
Appendix D: Formal Specification of the Memory Models
Appendix J: Programming with the Memory Models
Storage in the PowerPC (Stone and Fitzgerald)
UltraSPARC Programmer Reference Manual
Chapter 5: Memory Accesses and Cacheability
Chapter 15: Sparc-V9 Memory Models
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment