This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the
third possibility from arising.
+A data-dependency barrier must also order against dependent writes:
+
+ CPU 1 CPU 2
+ =============== ===============
+ { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
+ B = 4;
+ <write barrier>
+ WRITE_ONCE(P, &B);
+ Q = READ_ONCE(P);
+ <data dependency barrier>
+ *Q = 5;
+
+The data-dependency barrier must order the read into Q with the store
+into *Q. This prohibits this outcome:
+
+ (Q == B) && (B == 4)
+
+Please note that this pattern should be rare. After all, the whole point
+of dependency ordering is to -prevent- writes to the data structure, along
+with the expensive cache misses associated with those writes. This pattern
+can be used to record rare error conditions and the like, and the ordering
+prevents such records from being lost.
+
+
[!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on
machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes
even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache
Transitivity is a deeply intuitive notion about ordering that is not
always provided by real computer systems. The following example
-demonstrates transitivity (also called "cumulativity"):
+demonstrates transitivity:
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
======================= ======================= =======================
General barriers are therefore required to ensure that all CPUs agree
on the combined order of CPU 1's and CPU 2's accesses.
-To reiterate, if your code requires transitivity, use general barriers
-throughout.
+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:
+
+ int u, v, x, y, z;
+
+ void cpu0(void)
+ {
+ r0 = smp_load_acquire(&x);
+ WRITE_ONCE(u, 1);
+ smp_store_release(&y, 1);
+ }
+
+ void cpu1(void)
+ {
+ r1 = smp_load_acquire(&y);
+ r4 = READ_ONCE(v);
+ r5 = READ_ONCE(u);
+ smp_store_release(&z, 1);
+ }
+
+ void cpu2(void)
+ {
+ r2 = smp_load_acquire(&z);
+ smp_store_release(&x, 1);
+ }
+
+ void cpu3(void)
+ {
+ WRITE_ONCE(v, 1);
+ smp_mb();
+ 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:
+
+ r0 == 1 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1
+
+Furthermore, because of the release-acquire relationship between cpu0()
+and cpu1(), cpu1() must see cpu0()'s writes, so that the following
+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:
+
+ r0 == 0 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && r3 == 0 && r4 == 0
+
+As an aside, the following outcome is also possible:
+
+ r0 == 0 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && r3 == 0 && r4 == 0 && r5 == 1
+
+Although cpu0(), cpu1(), and cpu2() will see their respective reads and
+writes in order, CPUs not involved in the release-acquire chain might
+well disagree on the order. This disagreement stems from the fact that
+the weak memory-barrier instructions used to implement smp_load_acquire()
+and smp_store_release() are not required to order prior stores against
+subsequent loads in all cases. This means that cpu3() can see cpu0()'s
+store to u as happening -after- cpu1()'s load from v, even though
+both cpu0() and cpu1() agree that these two operations occurred in the
+intended order.
+
+However, please keep in mind that smp_load_acquire() is not magic.
+In particular, it simply reads from its argument with ordering. It does
+-not- ensure that any particular value will be read. Therefore, the
+following outcome is possible:
+
+ r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 && r2 == 0 && r5 == 0
+
+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.
========================
the following:
a = 0;
- /* Code that does not store to variable a. */
+ ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
a = 0;
The compiler sees that the value of variable 'a' is already zero, so
wrong guess:
WRITE_ONCE(a, 0);
- /* Code that does not store to variable a. */
+ ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
WRITE_ONCE(a, 0);
(*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless
projects / linux-2.6-block.git / blobdiff