Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes
Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Jarek Poplawski
Linus Torvalds
Родитель
03491c9293
Коммит
81fc632355
|
|
@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Contents:
|
|||
(*) Explicit kernel barriers.
|
||||
|
||||
- Compiler barrier.
|
||||
- The CPU memory barriers.
|
||||
- CPU memory barriers.
|
||||
- MMIO write barrier.
|
||||
|
||||
(*) Implicit kernel memory barriers.
|
||||
|
|
@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ Memory barriers are such interventions. They impose a perceived partial
|
|||
ordering over the memory operations on either side of the barrier.
|
||||
|
||||
Such enforcement is important because the CPUs and other devices in a system
|
||||
can use a variety of tricks to improve performance - including reordering,
|
||||
can use a variety of tricks to improve performance, including reordering,
|
||||
deferral and combination of memory operations; speculative loads; speculative
|
||||
branch prediction and various types of caching. Memory barriers are used to
|
||||
override or suppress these tricks, allowing the code to sanely control the
|
||||
|
|
@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ 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
|
||||
match the loads after the read barrier or the data dependency barrier, and vice
|
||||
versa:
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1 CPU 2
|
||||
|
|
@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ versa:
|
|||
EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
|
||||
------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Firstly, write barriers act as a partial orderings on store operations.
|
||||
Firstly, write barriers act as partial orderings on store operations.
|
||||
Consider the following sequence of events:
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1
|
||||
|
|
@ -608,15 +608,15 @@ STORE B, STORE C } all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
|
|||
+-------+ : :
|
||||
| | +------+
|
||||
| |------>| C=3 | } /\
|
||||
| | : +------+ }----- \ -----> Events perceptible
|
||||
| | : | A=1 | } \/ to rest of system
|
||||
| | : +------+ }----- \ -----> Events perceptible to
|
||||
| | : | A=1 | } \/ the rest of the system
|
||||
| | : +------+ }
|
||||
| CPU 1 | : | B=2 | }
|
||||
| | +------+ }
|
||||
| | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww } <--- At this point the write barrier
|
||||
| | +------+ } requires all stores prior to the
|
||||
| | : | E=5 | } barrier to be committed before
|
||||
| | : +------+ } further stores may be take place.
|
||||
| | : +------+ } further stores may take place
|
||||
| |------>| D=4 | }
|
||||
| | +------+
|
||||
+-------+ : :
|
||||
|
|
@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ STORE B, STORE C } all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
|
|||
V
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Secondly, data dependency barriers act as a partial orderings on data-dependent
|
||||
Secondly, data dependency barriers act as partial orderings on data-dependent
|
||||
loads. Consider the following sequence of events:
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1 CPU 2
|
||||
|
|
@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ compiler from moving the memory accesses either side of it to the other side:
|
|||
|
||||
barrier();
|
||||
|
||||
This a general barrier - lesser varieties of compiler barrier do not exist.
|
||||
This is a general barrier - lesser varieties of compiler barrier do not exist.
|
||||
|
||||
The compiler barrier has no direct effect on the CPU, which may then reorder
|
||||
things however it wishes.
|
||||
|
|
@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers:
|
|||
All CPU memory barriers unconditionally imply compiler barriers.
|
||||
|
||||
SMP memory barriers are reduced to compiler barriers on uniprocessor compiled
|
||||
systems because it is assumed that a CPU will be appear to be self-consistent,
|
||||
systems because it is assumed that a CPU will appear to be self-consistent,
|
||||
and will order overlapping accesses correctly with respect to itself.
|
||||
|
||||
[!] Note that SMP memory barriers _must_ be used to control the ordering of
|
||||
|
|
@ -1146,9 +1146,9 @@ for each construct. These operations all imply certain barriers:
|
|||
Therefore, from (1), (2) and (4) an UNLOCK followed by an unconditional LOCK is
|
||||
equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not.
|
||||
|
||||
[!] Note: one of the consequence of LOCKs and UNLOCKs being only one-way
|
||||
barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may
|
||||
seep into the inside of the critical section.
|
||||
[!] Note: one of the consequences of LOCKs and UNLOCKs being only one-way
|
||||
barriers is that the effects of 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
|
||||
|
|
@ -1239,7 +1239,7 @@ three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
|
|||
UNLOCK M UNLOCK Q
|
||||
*D = d; *H = h;
|
||||
|
||||
Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU #3 will see the accesses to *A
|
||||
Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU 3 will see the accesses to *A
|
||||
through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks
|
||||
on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1269,12 +1269,12 @@ However, if the following occurs:
|
|||
UNLOCK M [2]
|
||||
*H = h;
|
||||
|
||||
CPU #3 might see:
|
||||
CPU 3 might see:
|
||||
|
||||
*E, LOCK M [1], *C, *B, *A, UNLOCK M [1],
|
||||
LOCK M [2], *H, *F, *G, UNLOCK M [2], *D
|
||||
|
||||
But assuming CPU #1 gets the lock first, it won't see any of:
|
||||
But assuming CPU 1 gets the lock first, CPU 3 won't see any of:
|
||||
|
||||
*B, *C, *D, *F, *G or *H preceding LOCK M [1]
|
||||
*A, *B or *C following UNLOCK M [1]
|
||||
|
|
@ -1327,12 +1327,12 @@ spinlock, for example:
|
|||
mmiowb();
|
||||
spin_unlock(Q);
|
||||
|
||||
this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU #1 appear at the PCI bridge
|
||||
before either of the stores issued on CPU #2.
|
||||
this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU 1 appear at the PCI bridge
|
||||
before either of the stores issued on CPU 2.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Furthermore, following a store by a load to the same device obviates the need
|
||||
for an mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load
|
||||
Furthermore, following a store by a load from the same device obviates the need
|
||||
for the mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load
|
||||
is performed:
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1 CPU 2
|
||||
|
|
@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ circumstances in which reordering definitely _could_ be a problem:
|
|||
|
||||
(*) Atomic operations.
|
||||
|
||||
(*) Accessing devices (I/O).
|
||||
(*) Accessing devices.
|
||||
|
||||
(*) Interrupts.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1399,7 +1399,7 @@ To wake up a particular waiter, the up_read() or up_write() functions have to:
|
|||
(1) read the next pointer from this waiter's record to know as to where the
|
||||
next waiter record is;
|
||||
|
||||
(4) read the pointer to the waiter's task structure;
|
||||
(2) read the pointer to the waiter's task structure;
|
||||
|
||||
(3) clear the task pointer to tell the waiter it has been given the semaphore;
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1502,7 +1502,7 @@ operations and adjusting reference counters towards object destruction, and as
|
|||
such the implicit memory barrier effects are necessary.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The following operation are potential problems as they do _not_ imply memory
|
||||
The following operations are potential problems as they do _not_ imply memory
|
||||
barriers, but might be used for implementing such things as UNLOCK-class
|
||||
operations:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1517,7 +1517,7 @@ With these the appropriate explicit memory barrier should be used if necessary
|
|||
|
||||
The following also do _not_ imply memory barriers, and so may require explicit
|
||||
memory barriers under some circumstances (smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() for
|
||||
instance)):
|
||||
instance):
|
||||
|
||||
atomic_add();
|
||||
atomic_sub();
|
||||
|
|
@ -1641,8 +1641,8 @@ functions:
|
|||
indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
|
||||
CPUs don't have such a concept.
|
||||
|
||||
The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept - which on such
|
||||
CPUs as i386 and x86_64 cpus readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O
|
||||
The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept which - on such
|
||||
CPUs as i386 and x86_64 - readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O
|
||||
space. However, it may also be mapped as a virtual I/O space in the CPU's
|
||||
memory map, particularly on those CPUs that don't support alternate I/O
|
||||
spaces.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1664,7 +1664,7 @@ functions:
|
|||
i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the
|
||||
MTRR registers.
|
||||
|
||||
Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined,,
|
||||
Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined,
|
||||
provided they're not accessing a prefetchable device.
|
||||
|
||||
However, intermediary hardware (such as a PCI bridge) may indulge in
|
||||
|
|
@ -1689,7 +1689,7 @@ functions:
|
|||
|
||||
(*) ioreadX(), iowriteX()
|
||||
|
||||
These will perform as appropriate for the type of access they're actually
|
||||
These will perform appropriately for the type of access they're actually
|
||||
doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX().
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1705,7 +1705,7 @@ of arch-specific code.
|
|||
|
||||
This means that it must be considered that the CPU will execute its instruction
|
||||
stream in any order it feels like - or even in parallel - provided that if an
|
||||
instruction in the stream depends on the an earlier instruction, then that
|
||||
instruction in the stream depends on an earlier instruction, then that
|
||||
earlier instruction must be sufficiently complete[*] before the later
|
||||
instruction may proceed; in other words: provided that the appearance of
|
||||
causality is maintained.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1795,8 +1795,8 @@ eventually become visible on all CPUs, there's no guarantee that they will
|
|||
become apparent in the same order on those other CPUs.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Consider dealing with a system that has pair of CPUs (1 & 2), each of which has
|
||||
a pair of parallel data caches (CPU 1 has A/B, and CPU 2 has C/D):
|
||||
Consider dealing with a system that has a pair of CPUs (1 & 2), each of which
|
||||
has a pair of parallel data caches (CPU 1 has A/B, and CPU 2 has C/D):
|
||||
|
||||
:
|
||||
: +--------+
|
||||
|
|
@ -1835,7 +1835,7 @@ Imagine the system has the following properties:
|
|||
|
||||
(*) the coherency queue is not flushed by normal loads to lines already
|
||||
present in the cache, even though the contents of the queue may
|
||||
potentially effect those loads.
|
||||
potentially affect those loads.
|
||||
|
||||
Imagine, then, that two writes are made on the first CPU, with a write barrier
|
||||
between them to guarantee that they will appear to reach that CPU's caches in
|
||||
|
|
@ -1845,7 +1845,7 @@ the requisite order:
|
|||
=============== =============== =======================================
|
||||
u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
|
||||
v = 2;
|
||||
smp_wmb(); Make sure change to v visible before
|
||||
smp_wmb(); Make sure change to v is visible before
|
||||
change to p
|
||||
<A:modify v=2> v is now in cache A exclusively
|
||||
p = &v;
|
||||
|
|
@ -1853,7 +1853,7 @@ the requisite order:
|
|||
|
||||
The write memory barrier forces the other CPUs in the system to perceive that
|
||||
the local CPU's caches have apparently been updated in the correct order. But
|
||||
now imagine that the second CPU that wants to read those values:
|
||||
now imagine that the second CPU wants to read those values:
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1 CPU 2 COMMENT
|
||||
=============== =============== =======================================
|
||||
|
|
@ -1861,7 +1861,7 @@ now imagine that the second CPU that wants to read those values:
|
|||
q = p;
|
||||
x = *q;
|
||||
|
||||
The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in expected order, as the
|
||||
The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in the expected order, as the
|
||||
cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches whilst
|
||||
the update to the cacheline holding v is delayed in the other of the second
|
||||
CPU's caches by some other cache event:
|
||||
|
|
@ -1916,7 +1916,7 @@ access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on.
|
|||
|
||||
Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various
|
||||
cachelets for normal memory accesses. The semantics of the Alpha removes the
|
||||
need for coordination in absence of memory barriers.
|
||||
need for coordination in the absence of memory barriers.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
CACHE COHERENCY VS DMA
|
||||
|
|
@ -1931,10 +1931,10 @@ invalidate them as well).
|
|||
|
||||
In addition, the data DMA'd to RAM by a device may be overwritten by dirty
|
||||
cache lines being written back to RAM from a CPU's cache after the device has
|
||||
installed its own data, or cache lines simply present in a CPUs cache may
|
||||
simply obscure the fact that RAM has been updated, until at such time as the
|
||||
cacheline is discarded from the CPU's cache and reloaded. To deal with this,
|
||||
the appropriate part of the kernel must invalidate the overlapping bits of the
|
||||
installed its own data, or cache lines present in the CPU's cache may simply
|
||||
obscure the fact that RAM has been updated, until at such time as the cacheline
|
||||
is discarded from the CPU's cache and reloaded. To deal with this, the
|
||||
appropriate part of the kernel must invalidate the overlapping bits of the
|
||||
cache on each CPU.
|
||||
|
||||
See Documentation/cachetlb.txt for more information on cache management.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1944,7 +1944,7 @@ CACHE COHERENCY VS MMIO
|
|||
-----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Memory mapped I/O usually takes place through memory locations that are part of
|
||||
a window in the CPU's memory space that have different properties assigned than
|
||||
a window in the CPU's memory space that has different properties assigned than
|
||||
the usual RAM directed window.
|
||||
|
||||
Amongst these properties is usually the fact that such accesses bypass the
|
||||
|
|
@ -1960,7 +1960,7 @@ THE THINGS CPUS GET UP TO
|
|||
=========================
|
||||
|
||||
A programmer might take it for granted that the CPU will perform memory
|
||||
operations in exactly the order specified, so that if a CPU is, for example,
|
||||
operations in exactly the order specified, so that if the CPU is, for example,
|
||||
given the following piece of code to execute:
|
||||
|
||||
a = *A;
|
||||
|
|
@ -1969,7 +1969,7 @@ given the following piece of code to execute:
|
|||
d = *D;
|
||||
*E = e;
|
||||
|
||||
They would then expect that the CPU will complete the memory operation for each
|
||||
they would then expect that the CPU will complete the memory operation for each
|
||||
instruction before moving on to the next one, leading to a definite sequence of
|
||||
operations as seen by external observers in the system:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1986,8 +1986,8 @@ assumption doesn't hold because:
|
|||
(*) loads may be done speculatively, and the result discarded should it prove
|
||||
to have been unnecessary;
|
||||
|
||||
(*) loads may be done speculatively, leading to the result having being
|
||||
fetched at the wrong time in the expected sequence of events;
|
||||
(*) loads may be done speculatively, leading to the result having been fetched
|
||||
at the wrong time in the expected sequence of events;
|
||||
|
||||
(*) the order of the memory accesses may be rearranged to promote better use
|
||||
of the CPU buses and caches;
|
||||
|
|
@ -2069,12 +2069,12 @@ AND THEN THERE'S THE ALPHA
|
|||
|
||||
The DEC Alpha CPU is one of the most relaxed CPUs there is. Not only that,
|
||||
some versions of the Alpha CPU have a split data cache, permitting them to have
|
||||
two semantically related cache lines updating at separate times. This is where
|
||||
two semantically-related cache lines updated at separate times. This is where
|
||||
the data dependency barrier really becomes necessary as this synchronises both
|
||||
caches with the memory coherence system, thus making it seem like pointer
|
||||
changes vs new data occur in the right order.
|
||||
|
||||
The Alpha defines the Linux's kernel's memory barrier model.
|
||||
The Alpha defines the Linux kernel's memory barrier model.
|
||||
|
||||
See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Загрузка…
Ссылка в новой задаче