diff options
author | Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> | 2018-07-16 20:06:03 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> | 2018-07-17 09:30:34 +0200 |
commit | 7696f9910a9a40b8a952f57d3428515fabd2d889 (patch) | |
tree | 194b3c37bfd2a14378cb59bab3655ee6d0115cfb /Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | |
parent | locking/spinlock, sched/core: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock() (diff) | |
download | linux-7696f9910a9a40b8a952f57d3428515fabd2d889.tar.xz linux-7696f9910a9a40b8a952f57d3428515fabd2d889.zip |
sched/Documentation: Update wake_up() & co. memory-barrier guarantees
Both the implementation and the users' expectation [1] for the various
wakeup primitives have evolved over time, but the documentation has not
kept up with these changes: brings it into 2018.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180424091510.GB4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Also applied feedback from Alan Stern.
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716180605.16115-12-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/memory-barriers.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 43 |
1 files changed, 27 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt index a02d6bbfc9d0..0d8d7ef131e9 100644 --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt @@ -2179,32 +2179,41 @@ or: event_indicated = 1; wake_up_process(event_daemon); -A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they -wake something up. The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so -sits between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING: +A general memory barrier is executed by wake_up() if it wakes something up. +If it doesn't wake anything up then a memory barrier may or may not be +executed; you must not rely on it. The barrier occurs before the task state +is accessed, in particular, it sits between the STORE to indicate the event +and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING: - CPU 1 CPU 2 + CPU 1 (Sleeper) CPU 2 (Waker) =============================== =============================== set_current_state(); STORE event_indicated smp_store_mb(); wake_up(); - STORE current->state <write barrier> - <general barrier> STORE current->state - LOAD event_indicated + STORE current->state ... + <general barrier> <general barrier> + LOAD event_indicated if ((LOAD task->state) & TASK_NORMAL) + STORE task->state -To repeat, this write memory barrier is present if and only if something -is actually awakened. To see this, consider the following sequence of -events, where X and Y are both initially zero: +where "task" is the thread being woken up and it equals CPU 1's "current". + +To repeat, a general memory barrier is guaranteed to be executed by wake_up() +if something is actually awakened, but otherwise there is no such guarantee. +To see this, consider the following sequence of events, where X and Y are both +initially zero: CPU 1 CPU 2 =============================== =============================== - X = 1; STORE event_indicated + X = 1; Y = 1; smp_mb(); wake_up(); - Y = 1; wait_event(wq, Y == 1); - wake_up(); load from Y sees 1, no memory barrier - load from X might see 0 + LOAD Y LOAD X + +If a wakeup does occur, one (at least) of the two loads must see 1. If, on +the other hand, a wakeup does not occur, both loads might see 0. -In contrast, if a wakeup does occur, CPU 2's load from X would be guaranteed -to see 1. +wake_up_process() always executes a general memory barrier. The barrier again +occurs before the task state is accessed. In particular, if the wake_up() in +the previous snippet were replaced by a call to wake_up_process() then one of +the two loads would be guaranteed to see 1. The available waker functions include: @@ -2224,6 +2233,8 @@ The available waker functions include: wake_up_poll(); wake_up_process(); +In terms of memory ordering, these functions all provide the same guarantees of +a wake_up() (or stronger). [!] Note that the memory barriers implied by the sleeper and the waker do _not_ order multiple stores before the wake-up with respect to loads of those stored |