lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier
Date
From
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> So we can't assume that complete(), wake_up() and co. imply any barriers.
>
> All we can assume is that try_to_wake_up() implies a write barrier, but we
> can't assume that that will be called via __wake_up_common().

So how about this, then?

David
---
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. may not imply a memory barrier
Add to the memory barriers document to note that wake_up(), complete() and
co. may not be assumed to imply any sort of memory barrier, with the exception
of try_to_wake_up() and things derived from that.

Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
kernel/sched.c | 10 ++++++++++
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index f5b7127..6bd626a 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ Contents:

- Interprocessor interaction.
- Atomic operations.
+ - Wake up of processes
- Accessing devices.
- Interrupts.

@@ -1224,6 +1225,9 @@ Other functions that imply barriers:

(*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.

+ (*) try_to_wake_up() and things derived from that imply a write memory
+ barrier.
+

=================================
INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS
@@ -1366,13 +1370,15 @@ WHERE ARE MEMORY BARRIERS NEEDED?

Under normal operation, memory operation reordering is generally not going to
be a problem as a single-threaded linear piece of code will still appear to
-work correctly, even if it's in an SMP kernel. There are, however, three
+work correctly, even if it's in an SMP kernel. There are, however, five
circumstances in which reordering definitely _could_ be a problem:

(*) Interprocessor interaction.

(*) Atomic operations.

+ (*) Wake up of processes.
+
(*) Accessing devices.

(*) Interrupts.
@@ -1568,6 +1574,32 @@ and in such cases the special barrier primitives will be no-ops.
See Documentation/atomic_ops.txt for more information.


+WAKE UP OF PROCESSES
+--------------------
+
+An unlock, write memory barrier or a full memory barrier may be needed before a
+call to wake up another processes if the waker sets some state that the sleeper
+will need to see.
+
+ complete();
+ wake_up();
+ wake_up_all();
+ wake_up_bit();
+ wake_up_interruptible();
+ wake_up_interruptible_all();
+ wake_up_interruptible_nr();
+ wake_up_interruptible_poll();
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync();
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll();
+ wake_up_locked();
+ wake_up_locked_poll();
+ wake_up_nr();
+ wake_up_poll();
+
+The sleeper may then need to interpolate a lock, read or full memory barrier
+before accessing that state.
+
+
ACCESSING DEVICES
-----------------

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index b902e58..7cbc3de 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2337,6 +2337,8 @@ static int sched_balance_self(int cpu, int flag)
* runnable without the overhead of this.
*
* returns failure only if the task is already active.
+ *
+ * It may be assumed that this function implies a full memory barrier.
*/
static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int sync)
{
@@ -5241,6 +5243,8 @@ void __wake_up_common(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
* @mode: which threads
* @nr_exclusive: how many wake-one or wake-many threads to wake up
* @key: is directly passed to the wakeup function
+ *
+ * It may not be assumed that this function implies any sort of memory barrier.
*/
void __wake_up(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
int nr_exclusive, void *key)
@@ -5279,6 +5283,8 @@ void __wake_up_locked_key(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode, void *key)
* with each other. This can prevent needless bouncing between CPUs.
*
* On UP it can prevent extra preemption.
+ *
+ * It may not be assumed that this function implies any sort of memory barrier.
*/
void __wake_up_sync_key(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
int nr_exclusive, void *key)
@@ -5315,6 +5321,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_sync); /* For internal use only */
* awakened in the same order in which they were queued.
*
* See also complete_all(), wait_for_completion() and related routines.
+ *
+ * It may not be assumed that this function implies any sort of memory barrier.
*/
void complete(struct completion *x)
{
@@ -5332,6 +5340,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete);
* @x: holds the state of this particular completion
*
* This will wake up all threads waiting on this particular completion event.
+ *
+ * It may not be assumed that this function implies any sort of memory barrier.
*/
void complete_all(struct completion *x)
{

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-22 18:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans