lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/16] memory-barriers: Replace uses of "transitive"
Date
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: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 185 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index b759a60624fd..b6882680247e 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -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
--
2.5.2
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-04 23:23    [W:0.125 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site