1 ============================
2 LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
3 ============================
5 By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
6 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
7 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
8 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
14 This document is not a specification; it is intentionally (for the sake of
15 brevity) and unintentionally (due to being human) incomplete. This document is
16 meant as a guide to using the various memory barriers provided by Linux, but
17 in case of any doubt (and there are many) please ask.
19 To repeat, this document is not a specification of what Linux expects from
22 The purpose of this document is twofold:
24 (1) to specify the minimum functionality that one can rely on for any
25 particular barrier, and
27 (2) to provide a guide as to how to use the barriers that are available.
29 Note that an architecture can provide more than the minimum requirement
30 for any particular barrier, but if the architecture provides less than
31 that, that architecture is incorrect.
33 Note also that it is possible that a barrier may be a no-op for an
34 architecture because the way that arch works renders an explicit barrier
35 unnecessary in that case.
42 (*) Abstract memory access model.
47 (*) What are memory barriers?
49 - Varieties of memory barrier.
50 - What may not be assumed about memory barriers?
51 - Data dependency barriers.
52 - Control dependencies.
53 - SMP barrier pairing.
54 - Examples of memory barrier sequences.
55 - Read memory barriers vs load speculation.
56 - Multicopy atomicity.
58 (*) Explicit kernel barriers.
61 - CPU memory barriers.
64 (*) Implicit kernel memory barriers.
66 - Lock acquisition functions.
67 - Interrupt disabling functions.
68 - Sleep and wake-up functions.
69 - Miscellaneous functions.
71 (*) Inter-CPU acquiring barrier effects.
73 - Acquires vs memory accesses.
74 - Acquires vs I/O accesses.
76 (*) Where are memory barriers needed?
78 - Interprocessor interaction.
83 (*) Kernel I/O barrier effects.
85 (*) Assumed minimum execution ordering model.
87 (*) The effects of the cpu cache.
90 - Cache coherency vs DMA.
91 - Cache coherency vs MMIO.
93 (*) The things CPUs get up to.
95 - And then there's the Alpha.
96 - Virtual Machine Guests.
105 ============================
106 ABSTRACT MEMORY ACCESS MODEL
107 ============================
109 Consider the following abstract model of the system:
114 +-------+ : +--------+ : +-------+
117 | CPU 1 |<----->| Memory |<----->| CPU 2 |
120 +-------+ : +--------+ : +-------+
128 +---------->| Device |<----------+
134 Each CPU executes a program that generates memory access operations. In the
135 abstract CPU, memory operation ordering is very relaxed, and a CPU may actually
136 perform the memory operations in any order it likes, provided program causality
137 appears to be maintained. Similarly, the compiler may also arrange the
138 instructions it emits in any order it likes, provided it doesn't affect the
139 apparent operation of the program.
141 So in the above diagram, the effects of the memory operations performed by a
142 CPU are perceived by the rest of the system as the operations cross the
143 interface between the CPU and rest of the system (the dotted lines).
146 For example, consider the following sequence of events:
149 =============== ===============
154 The set of accesses as seen by the memory system in the middle can be arranged
155 in 24 different combinations:
157 STORE A=3, STORE B=4, y=LOAD A->3, x=LOAD B->4
158 STORE A=3, STORE B=4, x=LOAD B->4, y=LOAD A->3
159 STORE A=3, y=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4, x=LOAD B->4
160 STORE A=3, y=LOAD A->3, x=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4
161 STORE A=3, x=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4, y=LOAD A->3
162 STORE A=3, x=LOAD B->2, y=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4
163 STORE B=4, STORE A=3, y=LOAD A->3, x=LOAD B->4
167 and can thus result in four different combinations of values:
175 Furthermore, the stores committed by a CPU to the memory system may not be
176 perceived by the loads made by another CPU in the same order as the stores were
180 As a further example, consider this sequence of events:
183 =============== ===============
184 { A == 1, B == 2, C == 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
188 There is an obvious data dependency here, as the value loaded into D depends on
189 the address retrieved from P by CPU 2. At the end of the sequence, any of the
190 following results are possible:
192 (Q == &A) and (D == 1)
193 (Q == &B) and (D == 2)
194 (Q == &B) and (D == 4)
196 Note that CPU 2 will never try and load C into D because the CPU will load P
197 into Q before issuing the load of *Q.
203 Some devices present their control interfaces as collections of memory
204 locations, but the order in which the control registers are accessed is very
205 important. For instance, imagine an ethernet card with a set of internal
206 registers that are accessed through an address port register (A) and a data
207 port register (D). To read internal register 5, the following code might then
213 but this might show up as either of the following two sequences:
215 STORE *A = 5, x = LOAD *D
216 x = LOAD *D, STORE *A = 5
218 the second of which will almost certainly result in a malfunction, since it set
219 the address _after_ attempting to read the register.
225 There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
227 (*) On any given CPU, dependent memory accesses will be issued in order, with
228 respect to itself. This means that for:
230 Q = READ_ONCE(P); smp_read_barrier_depends(); D = READ_ONCE(*Q);
232 the CPU will issue the following memory operations:
234 Q = LOAD P, D = LOAD *Q
236 and always in that order. On most systems, smp_read_barrier_depends()
237 does nothing, but it is required for DEC Alpha. The READ_ONCE()
238 is required to prevent compiler mischief. Please note that you
239 should normally use something like rcu_dereference() instead of
240 open-coding smp_read_barrier_depends().
242 (*) Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will appear to be
243 ordered within that CPU. This means that for:
245 a = READ_ONCE(*X); WRITE_ONCE(*X, b);
247 the CPU will only issue the following sequence of memory operations:
249 a = LOAD *X, STORE *X = b
253 WRITE_ONCE(*X, c); d = READ_ONCE(*X);
255 the CPU will only issue:
257 STORE *X = c, d = LOAD *X
259 (Loads and stores overlap if they are targeted at overlapping pieces of
262 And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
264 (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that the compiler will do what you want
265 with memory references that are not protected by READ_ONCE() and
266 WRITE_ONCE(). Without them, the compiler is within its rights to
267 do all sorts of "creative" transformations, which are covered in
268 the COMPILER BARRIER section.
270 (*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued
271 in the order given. This means that for:
273 X = *A; Y = *B; *D = Z;
275 we may get any of the following sequences:
277 X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z
278 X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B
279 Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A, STORE *D = Z
280 Y = LOAD *B, STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A
281 STORE *D = Z, X = LOAD *A, Y = LOAD *B
282 STORE *D = Z, Y = LOAD *B, X = LOAD *A
284 (*) It _must_ be assumed that overlapping memory accesses may be merged or
285 discarded. This means that for:
287 X = *A; Y = *(A + 4);
289 we may get any one of the following sequences:
291 X = LOAD *A; Y = LOAD *(A + 4);
292 Y = LOAD *(A + 4); X = LOAD *A;
293 {X, Y} = LOAD {*A, *(A + 4) };
297 *A = X; *(A + 4) = Y;
301 STORE *A = X; STORE *(A + 4) = Y;
302 STORE *(A + 4) = Y; STORE *A = X;
303 STORE {*A, *(A + 4) } = {X, Y};
305 And there are anti-guarantees:
307 (*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often
308 generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write
309 sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel
312 (*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields
313 in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields
314 in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler's
315 non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one
316 field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.
318 (*) These guarantees apply only to properly aligned and sized scalar
319 variables. "Properly sized" currently means variables that are
320 the same size as "char", "short", "int" and "long". "Properly
321 aligned" means the natural alignment, thus no constraints for
322 "char", two-byte alignment for "short", four-byte alignment for
323 "int", and either four-byte or eight-byte alignment for "long",
324 on 32-bit and 64-bit systems, respectively. Note that these
325 guarantees were introduced into the C11 standard, so beware when
326 using older pre-C11 compilers (for example, gcc 4.6). The portion
327 of the standard containing this guarantee is Section 3.14, which
328 defines "memory location" as follows:
331 either an object of scalar type, or a maximal sequence
332 of adjacent bit-fields all having nonzero width
334 NOTE 1: Two threads of execution can update and access
335 separate memory locations without interfering with
338 NOTE 2: A bit-field and an adjacent non-bit-field member
339 are in separate memory locations. The same applies
340 to two bit-fields, if one is declared inside a nested
341 structure declaration and the other is not, or if the two
342 are separated by a zero-length bit-field declaration,
343 or if they are separated by a non-bit-field member
344 declaration. It is not safe to concurrently update two
345 bit-fields in the same structure if all members declared
346 between them are also bit-fields, no matter what the
347 sizes of those intervening bit-fields happen to be.
350 =========================
351 WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS?
352 =========================
354 As can be seen above, independent memory operations are effectively performed
355 in random order, but this can be a problem for CPU-CPU interaction and for I/O.
356 What is required is some way of intervening to instruct the compiler and the
357 CPU to restrict the order.
359 Memory barriers are such interventions. They impose a perceived partial
360 ordering over the memory operations on either side of the barrier.
362 Such enforcement is important because the CPUs and other devices in a system
363 can use a variety of tricks to improve performance, including reordering,
364 deferral and combination of memory operations; speculative loads; speculative
365 branch prediction and various types of caching. Memory barriers are used to
366 override or suppress these tricks, allowing the code to sanely control the
367 interaction of multiple CPUs and/or devices.
370 VARIETIES OF MEMORY BARRIER
371 ---------------------------
373 Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
375 (1) Write (or store) memory barriers.
377 A write memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the STORE operations
378 specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all the STORE
379 operations specified after the barrier with respect to the other
380 components of the system.
382 A write barrier is a partial ordering on stores only; it is not required
383 to have any effect on loads.
385 A CPU can be viewed as committing a sequence of store operations to the
386 memory system as time progresses. All stores _before_ a write barrier
387 will occur _before_ all the stores after the write barrier.
389 [!] Note that write barriers should normally be paired with read or data
390 dependency barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
393 (2) Data dependency barriers.
395 A data dependency barrier is a weaker form of read barrier. In the case
396 where two loads are performed such that the second depends on the result
397 of the first (eg: the first load retrieves the address to which the second
398 load will be directed), a data dependency barrier would be required to
399 make sure that the target of the second load is updated before the address
400 obtained by the first load is accessed.
402 A data dependency barrier is a partial ordering on interdependent loads
403 only; it is not required to have any effect on stores, independent loads
404 or overlapping loads.
406 As mentioned in (1), the other CPUs in the system can be viewed as
407 committing sequences of stores to the memory system that the CPU being
408 considered can then perceive. A data dependency barrier issued by the CPU
409 under consideration guarantees that for any load preceding it, if that
410 load touches one of a sequence of stores from another CPU, then by the
411 time the barrier completes, the effects of all the stores prior to that
412 touched by the load will be perceptible to any loads issued after the data
415 See the "Examples of memory barrier sequences" subsection for diagrams
416 showing the ordering constraints.
418 [!] Note that the first load really has to have a _data_ dependency and
419 not a control dependency. If the address for the second load is dependent
420 on the first load, but the dependency is through a conditional rather than
421 actually loading the address itself, then it's a _control_ dependency and
422 a full read barrier or better is required. See the "Control dependencies"
423 subsection for more information.
425 [!] Note that data dependency barriers should normally be paired with
426 write barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
429 (3) Read (or load) memory barriers.
431 A read barrier is a data dependency barrier plus a guarantee that all the
432 LOAD operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before
433 all the LOAD operations specified after the barrier with respect to the
434 other components of the system.
436 A read barrier is a partial ordering on loads only; it is not required to
437 have any effect on stores.
439 Read memory barriers imply data dependency barriers, and so can substitute
442 [!] Note that read barriers should normally be paired with write barriers;
443 see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
446 (4) General memory barriers.
448 A general memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the LOAD and STORE
449 operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all
450 the LOAD and STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to
451 the other components of the system.
453 A general memory barrier is a partial ordering over both loads and stores.
455 General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so
456 can substitute for either.
459 And a couple of implicit varieties:
461 (5) ACQUIRE operations.
463 This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory
464 operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen after the
465 ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of the system.
466 ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and both smp_load_acquire()
467 and smp_cond_acquire() operations. The later builds the necessary ACQUIRE
468 semantics from relying on a control dependency and smp_rmb().
470 Memory operations that occur before an ACQUIRE operation may appear to
471 happen after it completes.
473 An ACQUIRE operation should almost always be paired with a RELEASE
477 (6) RELEASE operations.
479 This also acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all
480 memory operations before the RELEASE operation will appear to happen
481 before the RELEASE operation with respect to the other components of the
482 system. RELEASE operations include UNLOCK operations and
483 smp_store_release() operations.
485 Memory operations that occur after a RELEASE operation may appear to
486 happen before it completes.
488 The use of ACQUIRE and RELEASE operations generally precludes the need
489 for other sorts of memory barrier (but note the exceptions mentioned in
490 the subsection "MMIO write barrier"). In addition, a RELEASE+ACQUIRE
491 pair is -not- guaranteed to act as a full memory barrier. However, after
492 an ACQUIRE on a given variable, all memory accesses preceding any prior
493 RELEASE on that same variable are guaranteed to be visible. In other
494 words, within a given variable's critical section, all accesses of all
495 previous critical sections for that variable are guaranteed to have
498 This means that ACQUIRE acts as a minimal "acquire" operation and
499 RELEASE acts as a minimal "release" operation.
501 A subset of the atomic operations described in atomic_t.txt have ACQUIRE and
502 RELEASE variants in addition to fully-ordered and relaxed (no barrier
503 semantics) definitions. For compound atomics performing both a load and a
504 store, ACQUIRE semantics apply only to the load and RELEASE semantics apply
505 only to the store portion of the operation.
507 Memory barriers are only required where there's a possibility of interaction
508 between two CPUs or between a CPU and a device. If it can be guaranteed that
509 there won't be any such interaction in any particular piece of code, then
510 memory barriers are unnecessary in that piece of code.
513 Note that these are the _minimum_ guarantees. Different architectures may give
514 more substantial guarantees, but they may _not_ be relied upon outside of arch
518 WHAT MAY NOT BE ASSUMED ABOUT MEMORY BARRIERS?
519 ----------------------------------------------
521 There are certain things that the Linux kernel memory barriers do not guarantee:
523 (*) There is no guarantee that any of the memory accesses specified before a
524 memory barrier will be _complete_ by the completion of a memory barrier
525 instruction; the barrier can be considered to draw a line in that CPU's
526 access queue that accesses of the appropriate type may not cross.
528 (*) There is no guarantee that issuing a memory barrier on one CPU will have
529 any direct effect on another CPU or any other hardware in the system. The
530 indirect effect will be the order in which the second CPU sees the effects
531 of the first CPU's accesses occur, but see the next point:
533 (*) There is no guarantee that a CPU will see the correct order of effects
534 from a second CPU's accesses, even _if_ the second CPU uses a memory
535 barrier, unless the first CPU _also_ uses a matching memory barrier (see
536 the subsection on "SMP Barrier Pairing").
538 (*) There is no guarantee that some intervening piece of off-the-CPU
539 hardware[*] will not reorder the memory accesses. CPU cache coherency
540 mechanisms should propagate the indirect effects of a memory barrier
541 between CPUs, but might not do so in order.
543 [*] For information on bus mastering DMA and coherency please read:
545 Documentation/PCI/pci.txt
546 Documentation/DMA-API-HOWTO.txt
547 Documentation/DMA-API.txt
550 DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS
551 ------------------------
553 The usage requirements of data dependency barriers are a little subtle, and
554 it's not always obvious that they're needed. To illustrate, consider the
555 following sequence of events:
558 =============== ===============
559 { A == 1, B == 2, C == 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
566 There's a clear data dependency here, and it would seem that by the end of the
567 sequence, Q must be either &A or &B, and that:
569 (Q == &A) implies (D == 1)
570 (Q == &B) implies (D == 4)
572 But! CPU 2's perception of P may be updated _before_ its perception of B, thus
573 leading to the following situation:
575 (Q == &B) and (D == 2) ????
577 Whilst this may seem like a failure of coherency or causality maintenance, it
578 isn't, and this behaviour can be observed on certain real CPUs (such as the DEC
581 To deal with this, a data dependency barrier or better must be inserted
582 between the address load and the data load:
585 =============== ===============
586 { A == 1, B == 2, C == 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
591 <data dependency barrier>
594 This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the
595 third possibility from arising.
598 [!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on
599 machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes
600 even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache
601 lines. The pointer P might be stored in an odd-numbered cache line, and the
602 variable B might be stored in an even-numbered cache line. Then, if the
603 even-numbered bank of the reading CPU's cache is extremely busy while the
604 odd-numbered bank is idle, one can see the new value of the pointer P (&B),
605 but the old value of the variable B (2).
608 A data-dependency barrier is not required to order dependent writes
609 because the CPUs that the Linux kernel supports don't do writes
610 until they are certain (1) that the write will actually happen, (2)
611 of the location of the write, and (3) of the value to be written.
612 But please carefully read the "CONTROL DEPENDENCIES" section and the
613 Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt file: The compiler can and does
614 break dependencies in a great many highly creative ways.
617 =============== ===============
618 { A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
625 Therefore, no data-dependency barrier is required to order the read into
626 Q with the store into *Q. In other words, this outcome is prohibited,
627 even without a data-dependency barrier:
629 (Q == &B) && (B == 4)
631 Please note that this pattern should be rare. After all, the whole point
632 of dependency ordering is to -prevent- writes to the data structure, along
633 with the expensive cache misses associated with those writes. This pattern
634 can be used to record rare error conditions and the like, and the CPUs'
635 naturally occurring ordering prevents such records from being lost.
638 Note well that the ordering provided by a data dependency is local to
639 the CPU containing it. See the section on "Multicopy atomicity" for
643 The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system,
644 for example. See rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() in
645 include/linux/rcupdate.h. This permits the current target of an RCU'd
646 pointer to be replaced with a new modified target, without the replacement
647 target appearing to be incompletely initialised.
649 See also the subsection on "Cache Coherency" for a more thorough example.
655 Control dependencies can be a bit tricky because current compilers do
656 not understand them. The purpose of this section is to help you prevent
657 the compiler's ignorance from breaking your code.
659 A load-load control dependency requires a full read memory barrier, not
660 simply a data dependency barrier to make it work correctly. Consider the
661 following bit of code:
665 <data dependency barrier> /* BUG: No data dependency!!! */
669 This will not have the desired effect because there is no actual data
670 dependency, but rather a control dependency that the CPU may short-circuit
671 by attempting to predict the outcome in advance, so that other CPUs see
672 the load from b as having happened before the load from a. In such a
673 case what's actually required is:
681 However, stores are not speculated. This means that ordering -is- provided
682 for load-store control dependencies, as in the following example:
689 Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.
690 That said, please note that neither READ_ONCE() nor WRITE_ONCE()
691 are optional! Without the READ_ONCE(), the compiler might combine the
692 load from 'a' with other loads from 'a'. Without the WRITE_ONCE(),
693 the compiler might combine the store to 'b' with other stores to 'b'.
694 Either can result in highly counterintuitive effects on ordering.
696 Worse yet, if the compiler is able to prove (say) that the value of
697 variable 'a' is always non-zero, it would be well within its rights
698 to optimize the original example by eliminating the "if" statement
702 b = 1; /* BUG: Compiler and CPU can both reorder!!! */
704 So don't leave out the READ_ONCE().
706 It is tempting to try to enforce ordering on identical stores on both
707 branches of the "if" statement as follows:
720 Unfortunately, current compilers will transform this as follows at high
725 WRITE_ONCE(b, 1); /* BUG: No ordering vs. load from a!!! */
727 /* WRITE_ONCE(b, 1); -- moved up, BUG!!! */
730 /* WRITE_ONCE(b, 1); -- moved up, BUG!!! */
734 Now there is no conditional between the load from 'a' and the store to
735 'b', which means that the CPU is within its rights to reorder them:
736 The conditional is absolutely required, and must be present in the
737 assembly code even after all compiler optimizations have been applied.
738 Therefore, if you need ordering in this example, you need explicit
739 memory barriers, for example, smp_store_release():
743 smp_store_release(&b, 1);
746 smp_store_release(&b, 1);
750 In contrast, without explicit memory barriers, two-legged-if control
751 ordering is guaranteed only when the stores differ, for example:
762 The initial READ_ONCE() is still required to prevent the compiler from
763 proving the value of 'a'.
765 In addition, you need to be careful what you do with the local variable 'q',
766 otherwise the compiler might be able to guess the value and again remove
767 the needed conditional. For example:
778 If MAX is defined to be 1, then the compiler knows that (q % MAX) is
779 equal to zero, in which case the compiler is within its rights to
780 transform the above code into the following:
786 Given this transformation, the CPU is not required to respect the ordering
787 between the load from variable 'a' and the store to variable 'b'. It is
788 tempting to add a barrier(), but this does not help. The conditional
789 is gone, and the barrier won't bring it back. Therefore, if you are
790 relying on this ordering, you should make sure that MAX is greater than
791 one, perhaps as follows:
794 BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX <= 1); /* Order load from a with store to b. */
803 Please note once again that the stores to 'b' differ. If they were
804 identical, as noted earlier, the compiler could pull this store outside
805 of the 'if' statement.
807 You must also be careful not to rely too much on boolean short-circuit
808 evaluation. Consider this example:
814 Because the first condition cannot fault and the second condition is
815 always true, the compiler can transform this example as following,
816 defeating control dependency:
821 This example underscores the need to ensure that the compiler cannot
822 out-guess your code. More generally, although READ_ONCE() does force
823 the compiler to actually emit code for a given load, it does not force
824 the compiler to use the results.
826 In addition, control dependencies apply only to the then-clause and
827 else-clause of the if-statement in question. In particular, it does
828 not necessarily apply to code following the if-statement:
836 WRITE_ONCE(c, 1); /* BUG: No ordering against the read from 'a'. */
838 It is tempting to argue that there in fact is ordering because the
839 compiler cannot reorder volatile accesses and also cannot reorder
840 the writes to 'b' with the condition. Unfortunately for this line
841 of reasoning, the compiler might compile the two writes to 'b' as
842 conditional-move instructions, as in this fanciful pseudo-assembly
852 A weakly ordered CPU would have no dependency of any sort between the load
853 from 'a' and the store to 'c'. The control dependencies would extend
854 only to the pair of cmov instructions and the store depending on them.
855 In short, control dependencies apply only to the stores in the then-clause
856 and else-clause of the if-statement in question (including functions
857 invoked by those two clauses), not to code following that if-statement.
860 Note well that the ordering provided by a control dependency is local
861 to the CPU containing it. See the section on "Multicopy atomicity"
862 for more information.
867 (*) Control dependencies can order prior loads against later stores.
868 However, they do -not- guarantee any other sort of ordering:
869 Not prior loads against later loads, nor prior stores against
870 later anything. If you need these other forms of ordering,
871 use smp_rmb(), smp_wmb(), or, in the case of prior stores and
872 later loads, smp_mb().
874 (*) If both legs of the "if" statement begin with identical stores to
875 the same variable, then those stores must be ordered, either by
876 preceding both of them with smp_mb() or by using smp_store_release()
877 to carry out the stores. Please note that it is -not- sufficient
878 to use barrier() at beginning of each leg of the "if" statement
879 because, as shown by the example above, optimizing compilers can
880 destroy the control dependency while respecting the letter of the
883 (*) Control dependencies require at least one run-time conditional
884 between the prior load and the subsequent store, and this
885 conditional must involve the prior load. If the compiler is able
886 to optimize the conditional away, it will have also optimized
887 away the ordering. Careful use of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()
888 can help to preserve the needed conditional.
890 (*) Control dependencies require that the compiler avoid reordering the
891 dependency into nonexistence. Careful use of READ_ONCE() or
892 atomic{,64}_read() can help to preserve your control dependency.
893 Please see the COMPILER BARRIER section for more information.
895 (*) Control dependencies apply only to the then-clause and else-clause
896 of the if-statement containing the control dependency, including
897 any functions that these two clauses call. Control dependencies
898 do -not- apply to code following the if-statement containing the
901 (*) Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.
903 (*) Control dependencies do -not- provide multicopy atomicity. If you
904 need all the CPUs to see a given store at the same time, use smp_mb().
906 (*) Compilers do not understand control dependencies. It is therefore
907 your job to ensure that they do not break your code.
913 When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
914 always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
916 General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair with most
917 other types of barriers, albeit without multicopy atomicity. An acquire
918 barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also pair with other
919 barriers, including of course general barriers. A write barrier pairs
920 with a data dependency barrier, a control dependency, an acquire barrier,
921 a release barrier, a read barrier, or a general barrier. Similarly a
922 read barrier, control dependency, or a data dependency barrier pairs
923 with a write barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier, or a
927 =============== ===============
930 WRITE_ONCE(b, 2); x = READ_ONCE(b);
937 =============== ===============================
940 WRITE_ONCE(b, &a); x = READ_ONCE(b);
941 <data dependency barrier>
947 =============== ===============================
950 WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); if (r2 = READ_ONCE(x)) {
951 <implicit control dependency>
955 assert(r1 == 0 || r2 == 0);
957 Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
960 [!] Note that the stores before the write barrier would normally be expected to
961 match the loads after the read barrier or the data dependency barrier, and vice
965 =================== ===================
966 WRITE_ONCE(a, 1); }---- --->{ v = READ_ONCE(c);
967 WRITE_ONCE(b, 2); } \ / { w = READ_ONCE(d);
968 <write barrier> \ <read barrier>
969 WRITE_ONCE(c, 3); } / \ { x = READ_ONCE(a);
970 WRITE_ONCE(d, 4); }---- --->{ y = READ_ONCE(b);
973 EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
974 ------------------------------------
976 Firstly, write barriers act as partial orderings on store operations.
977 Consider the following sequence of events:
980 =======================
988 This sequence of events is committed to the memory coherence system in an order
989 that the rest of the system might perceive as the unordered set of { STORE A,
990 STORE B, STORE C } all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
995 | |------>| C=3 | } /\
996 | | : +------+ }----- \ -----> Events perceptible to
997 | | : | A=1 | } \/ the rest of the system
999 | CPU 1 | : | B=2 | }
1001 | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww } <--- At this point the write barrier
1002 | | +------+ } requires all stores prior to the
1003 | | : | E=5 | } barrier to be committed before
1004 | | : +------+ } further stores may take place
1009 | Sequence in which stores are committed to the
1010 | memory system by CPU 1
1014 Secondly, data dependency barriers act as partial orderings on data-dependent
1015 loads. Consider the following sequence of events:
1018 ======================= =======================
1019 { B = 7; X = 9; Y = 8; C = &Y }
1024 STORE D = 4 LOAD C (gets &B)
1027 Without intervention, CPU 2 may perceive the events on CPU 1 in some
1028 effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
1031 | | +------+ +-------+ | Sequence of update
1032 | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 | | of perception on
1033 | | : +------+ \ +-------+ | CPU 2
1034 | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y | V
1035 | | +------+ | +-------+
1036 | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : :
1038 | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+
1039 | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | |
1040 | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| |
1041 | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
1042 +-------+ : : | : : | |
1046 Apparently incorrect ---> | | B->7 |------>| |
1047 perception of B (!) | +-------+ | |
1050 The load of X holds ---> \ | X->9 |------>| |
1051 up the maintenance \ +-------+ | |
1052 of coherence of B ----->| B->2 | +-------+
1057 In the above example, CPU 2 perceives that B is 7, despite the load of *C
1058 (which would be B) coming after the LOAD of C.
1060 If, however, a data dependency barrier were to be placed between the load of C
1061 and the load of *C (ie: B) on CPU 2:
1064 ======================= =======================
1065 { B = 7; X = 9; Y = 8; C = &Y }
1070 STORE D = 4 LOAD C (gets &B)
1071 <data dependency barrier>
1074 then the following will occur:
1077 | | +------+ +-------+
1078 | |------>| B=2 |----- --->| Y->8 |
1079 | | : +------+ \ +-------+
1080 | CPU 1 | : | A=1 | \ --->| C->&Y |
1081 | | +------+ | +-------+
1082 | | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww | : :
1084 | | : | C=&B |--- | : : +-------+
1085 | | : +------+ \ | +-------+ | |
1086 | |------>| D=4 | ----------->| C->&B |------>| |
1087 | | +------+ | +-------+ | |
1088 +-------+ : : | : : | |
1092 | | X->9 |------>| |
1094 Makes sure all effects ---> \ ddddddddddddddddd | |
1095 prior to the store of C \ +-------+ | |
1096 are perceptible to ----->| B->2 |------>| |
1097 subsequent loads +-------+ | |
1101 And thirdly, a read barrier acts as a partial order on loads. Consider the
1102 following sequence of events:
1105 ======================= =======================
1113 Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in
1114 some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
1117 | | +------+ +-------+
1118 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
1119 | | +------+ \ +-------+
1120 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
1121 | | +------+ | +-------+
1122 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
1123 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
1124 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
1125 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
1126 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
1127 | | A->0 |------>| |
1137 If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of B and the
1141 ======================= =======================
1150 then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be perceived correctly by CPU
1154 | | +------+ +-------+
1155 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
1156 | | +------+ \ +-------+
1157 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
1158 | | +------+ | +-------+
1159 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
1160 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
1161 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
1162 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
1163 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
1166 At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
1167 barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | |
1168 prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| |
1169 to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | |
1173 To illustrate this more completely, consider what could happen if the code
1174 contained a load of A either side of the read barrier:
1177 ======================= =======================
1183 LOAD A [first load of A]
1185 LOAD A [second load of A]
1187 Even though the two loads of A both occur after the load of B, they may both
1188 come up with different values:
1191 | | +------+ +-------+
1192 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
1193 | | +------+ \ +-------+
1194 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
1195 | | +------+ | +-------+
1196 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
1197 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
1198 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
1199 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
1200 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
1204 | | A->0 |------>| 1st |
1206 At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
1207 barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ | |
1208 prior to the storage of B ---->| A->1 |------>| 2nd |
1209 to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ | |
1213 But it may be that the update to A from CPU 1 becomes perceptible to CPU 2
1214 before the read barrier completes anyway:
1217 | | +------+ +-------+
1218 | |------>| A=1 |------ --->| A->0 |
1219 | | +------+ \ +-------+
1220 | CPU 1 | wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->| B->9 |
1221 | | +------+ | +-------+
1222 | |------>| B=2 |--- | : :
1223 | | +------+ \ | : : +-------+
1224 +-------+ : : \ | +-------+ | |
1225 ---------->| B->2 |------>| |
1226 | +-------+ | CPU 2 |
1230 ---->| A->1 |------>| 1st |
1232 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
1234 | A->1 |------>| 2nd |
1239 The guarantee is that the second load will always come up with A == 1 if the
1240 load of B came up with B == 2. No such guarantee exists for the first load of
1241 A; that may come up with either A == 0 or A == 1.
1244 READ MEMORY BARRIERS VS LOAD SPECULATION
1245 ----------------------------------------
1247 Many CPUs speculate with loads: that is they see that they will need to load an
1248 item from memory, and they find a time where they're not using the bus for any
1249 other loads, and so do the load in advance - even though they haven't actually
1250 got to that point in the instruction execution flow yet. This permits the
1251 actual load instruction to potentially complete immediately because the CPU
1252 already has the value to hand.
1254 It may turn out that the CPU didn't actually need the value - perhaps because a
1255 branch circumvented the load - in which case it can discard the value or just
1256 cache it for later use.
1261 ======================= =======================
1263 DIVIDE } Divide instructions generally
1264 DIVIDE } take a long time to perform
1267 Which might appear as this:
1271 --->| B->2 |------>| |
1275 The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
1276 division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
1280 Once the divisions are complete --> : : ~-->| |
1281 the CPU can then perform the : : | |
1282 LOAD with immediate effect : : +-------+
1285 Placing a read barrier or a data dependency barrier just before the second
1289 ======================= =======================
1296 will force any value speculatively obtained to be reconsidered to an extent
1297 dependent on the type of barrier used. If there was no change made to the
1298 speculated memory location, then the speculated value will just be used:
1302 --->| B->2 |------>| |
1306 The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
1307 division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
1312 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~ | |
1319 but if there was an update or an invalidation from another CPU pending, then
1320 the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded:
1324 --->| B->2 |------>| |
1328 The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->| A->0 |~~~~ | |
1329 division speculates on the +-------+ ~ | |
1334 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | |
1336 The speculation is discarded ---> --->| A->1 |------>| |
1337 and an updated value is +-------+ | |
1338 retrieved : : +-------+
1342 --------------------
1344 Multicopy atomicity is a deeply intuitive notion about ordering that is
1345 not always provided by real computer systems, namely that a given store
1346 becomes visible at the same time to all CPUs, or, alternatively, that all
1347 CPUs agree on the order in which all stores become visible. However,
1348 support of full multicopy atomicity would rule out valuable hardware
1349 optimizations, so a weaker form called ``other multicopy atomicity''
1350 instead guarantees only that a given store becomes visible at the same
1351 time to all -other- CPUs. The remainder of this document discusses this
1352 weaker form, but for brevity will call it simply ``multicopy atomicity''.
1354 The following example demonstrates multicopy atomicity:
1357 ======================= ======================= =======================
1359 STORE X=1 r1=LOAD X (reads 1) LOAD Y (reads 1)
1360 <general barrier> <read barrier>
1363 Suppose that CPU 2's load from X returns 1, which it then stores to Y,
1364 and CPU 3's load from Y returns 1. This indicates that CPU 1's store
1365 to X precedes CPU 2's load from X and that CPU 2's store to Y precedes
1366 CPU 3's load from Y. In addition, the memory barriers guarantee that
1367 CPU 2 executes its load before its store, and CPU 3 loads from Y before
1368 it loads from X. The question is then "Can CPU 3's load from X return 0?"
1370 Because CPU 3's load from X in some sense comes after CPU 2's load, it
1371 is natural to expect that CPU 3's load from X must therefore return 1.
1372 This expectation follows from multicopy atomicity: if a load executing
1373 on CPU B follows a load from the same variable executing on CPU A (and
1374 CPU A did not originally store the value which it read), then on
1375 multicopy-atomic systems, CPU B's load must return either the same value
1376 that CPU A's load did or some later value. However, the Linux kernel
1377 does not require systems to be multicopy atomic.
1379 The use of a general memory barrier in the example above compensates
1380 for any lack of multicopy atomicity. In the example, if CPU 2's load
1381 from X returns 1 and CPU 3's load from Y returns 1, then CPU 3's load
1382 from X must indeed also return 1.
1384 However, dependencies, read barriers, and write barriers are not always
1385 able to compensate for non-multicopy atomicity. For example, suppose
1386 that CPU 2's general barrier is removed from the above example, leaving
1387 only the data dependency shown below:
1390 ======================= ======================= =======================
1392 STORE X=1 r1=LOAD X (reads 1) LOAD Y (reads 1)
1393 <data dependency> <read barrier>
1394 STORE Y=r1 LOAD X (reads 0)
1396 This substitution allows non-multicopy atomicity to run rampant: in
1397 this example, it is perfectly legal for CPU 2's load from X to return 1,
1398 CPU 3's load from Y to return 1, and its load from X to return 0.
1400 The key point is that although CPU 2's data dependency orders its load
1401 and store, it does not guarantee to order CPU 1's store. Thus, if this
1402 example runs on a non-multicopy-atomic system where CPUs 1 and 2 share a
1403 store buffer or a level of cache, CPU 2 might have early access to CPU 1's
1404 writes. General barriers are therefore required to ensure that all CPUs
1405 agree on the combined order of multiple accesses.
1407 General barriers can compensate not only for non-multicopy atomicity,
1408 but can also generate additional ordering that can ensure that -all-
1409 CPUs will perceive the same order of -all- operations. In contrast, a
1410 chain of release-acquire pairs do not provide this additional ordering,
1411 which means that only those CPUs on the chain are guaranteed to agree
1412 on the combined order of the accesses. For example, switching to C code
1413 in deference to the ghost of Herman Hollerith:
1419 r0 = smp_load_acquire(&x);
1421 smp_store_release(&y, 1);
1426 r1 = smp_load_acquire(&y);
1429 smp_store_release(&z, 1);
1434 r2 = smp_load_acquire(&z);
1435 smp_store_release(&x, 1);
1445 Because cpu0(), cpu1(), and cpu2() participate in a chain of
1446 smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() pairs, the following outcome
1449 r0 == 1 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1
1451 Furthermore, because of the release-acquire relationship between cpu0()
1452 and cpu1(), cpu1() must see cpu0()'s writes, so that the following
1453 outcome is prohibited:
1457 However, the ordering provided by a release-acquire chain is local
1458 to the CPUs participating in that chain and does not apply to cpu3(),
1459 at least aside from stores. Therefore, the following outcome is possible:
1461 r0 == 0 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && r3 == 0 && r4 == 0
1463 As an aside, the following outcome is also possible:
1465 r0 == 0 && r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && r3 == 0 && r4 == 0 && r5 == 1
1467 Although cpu0(), cpu1(), and cpu2() will see their respective reads and
1468 writes in order, CPUs not involved in the release-acquire chain might
1469 well disagree on the order. This disagreement stems from the fact that
1470 the weak memory-barrier instructions used to implement smp_load_acquire()
1471 and smp_store_release() are not required to order prior stores against
1472 subsequent loads in all cases. This means that cpu3() can see cpu0()'s
1473 store to u as happening -after- cpu1()'s load from v, even though
1474 both cpu0() and cpu1() agree that these two operations occurred in the
1477 However, please keep in mind that smp_load_acquire() is not magic.
1478 In particular, it simply reads from its argument with ordering. It does
1479 -not- ensure that any particular value will be read. Therefore, the
1480 following outcome is possible:
1482 r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 && r2 == 0 && r5 == 0
1484 Note that this outcome can happen even on a mythical sequentially
1485 consistent system where nothing is ever reordered.
1487 To reiterate, if your code requires full ordering of all operations,
1488 use general barriers throughout.
1491 ========================
1492 EXPLICIT KERNEL BARRIERS
1493 ========================
1495 The Linux kernel has a variety of different barriers that act at different
1498 (*) Compiler barrier.
1500 (*) CPU memory barriers.
1502 (*) MMIO write barrier.
1508 The Linux kernel has an explicit compiler barrier function that prevents the
1509 compiler from moving the memory accesses either side of it to the other side:
1513 This is a general barrier -- there are no read-read or write-write
1514 variants of barrier(). However, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() can be
1515 thought of as weak forms of barrier() that affect only the specific
1516 accesses flagged by the READ_ONCE() or WRITE_ONCE().
1518 The barrier() function has the following effects:
1520 (*) Prevents the compiler from reordering accesses following the
1521 barrier() to precede any accesses preceding the barrier().
1522 One example use for this property is to ease communication between
1523 interrupt-handler code and the code that was interrupted.
1525 (*) Within a loop, forces the compiler to load the variables used
1526 in that loop's conditional on each pass through that loop.
1528 The READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() functions can prevent any number of
1529 optimizations that, while perfectly safe in single-threaded code, can
1530 be fatal in concurrent code. Here are some examples of these sorts
1533 (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder loads and stores
1534 to the same variable, and in some cases, the CPU is within its
1535 rights to reorder loads to the same variable. This means that
1541 Might result in an older value of x stored in a[1] than in a[0].
1542 Prevent both the compiler and the CPU from doing this as follows:
1544 a[0] = READ_ONCE(x);
1545 a[1] = READ_ONCE(x);
1547 In short, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() provide cache coherence for
1548 accesses from multiple CPUs to a single variable.
1550 (*) The compiler is within its rights to merge successive loads from
1551 the same variable. Such merging can cause the compiler to "optimize"
1555 do_something_with(tmp);
1557 into the following code, which, although in some sense legitimate
1558 for single-threaded code, is almost certainly not what the developer
1563 do_something_with(tmp);
1565 Use READ_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from doing this to you:
1567 while (tmp = READ_ONCE(a))
1568 do_something_with(tmp);
1570 (*) The compiler is within its rights to reload a variable, for example,
1571 in cases where high register pressure prevents the compiler from
1572 keeping all data of interest in registers. The compiler might
1573 therefore optimize the variable 'tmp' out of our previous example:
1576 do_something_with(tmp);
1578 This could result in the following code, which is perfectly safe in
1579 single-threaded code, but can be fatal in concurrent code:
1582 do_something_with(a);
1584 For example, the optimized version of this code could result in
1585 passing a zero to do_something_with() in the case where the variable
1586 a was modified by some other CPU between the "while" statement and
1587 the call to do_something_with().
1589 Again, use READ_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from doing this:
1591 while (tmp = READ_ONCE(a))
1592 do_something_with(tmp);
1594 Note that if the compiler runs short of registers, it might save
1595 tmp onto the stack. The overhead of this saving and later restoring
1596 is why compilers reload variables. Doing so is perfectly safe for
1597 single-threaded code, so you need to tell the compiler about cases
1598 where it is not safe.
1600 (*) The compiler is within its rights to omit a load entirely if it knows
1601 what the value will be. For example, if the compiler can prove that
1602 the value of variable 'a' is always zero, it can optimize this code:
1605 do_something_with(tmp);
1611 This transformation is a win for single-threaded code because it
1612 gets rid of a load and a branch. The problem is that the compiler
1613 will carry out its proof assuming that the current CPU is the only
1614 one updating variable 'a'. If variable 'a' is shared, then the
1615 compiler's proof will be erroneous. Use READ_ONCE() to tell the
1616 compiler that it doesn't know as much as it thinks it does:
1618 while (tmp = READ_ONCE(a))
1619 do_something_with(tmp);
1621 But please note that the compiler is also closely watching what you
1622 do with the value after the READ_ONCE(). For example, suppose you
1623 do the following and MAX is a preprocessor macro with the value 1:
1625 while ((tmp = READ_ONCE(a)) % MAX)
1626 do_something_with(tmp);
1628 Then the compiler knows that the result of the "%" operator applied
1629 to MAX will always be zero, again allowing the compiler to optimize
1630 the code into near-nonexistence. (It will still load from the
1633 (*) Similarly, the compiler is within its rights to omit a store entirely
1634 if it knows that the variable already has the value being stored.
1635 Again, the compiler assumes that the current CPU is the only one
1636 storing into the variable, which can cause the compiler to do the
1637 wrong thing for shared variables. For example, suppose you have
1641 ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
1644 The compiler sees that the value of variable 'a' is already zero, so
1645 it might well omit the second store. This would come as a fatal
1646 surprise if some other CPU might have stored to variable 'a' in the
1649 Use WRITE_ONCE() to prevent the compiler from making this sort of
1653 ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
1656 (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless
1657 you tell it not to. For example, consider the following interaction
1658 between process-level code and an interrupt handler:
1660 void process_level(void)
1662 msg = get_message();
1666 void interrupt_handler(void)
1669 process_message(msg);
1672 There is nothing to prevent the compiler from transforming
1673 process_level() to the following, in fact, this might well be a
1674 win for single-threaded code:
1676 void process_level(void)
1679 msg = get_message();
1682 If the interrupt occurs between these two statement, then
1683 interrupt_handler() might be passed a garbled msg. Use WRITE_ONCE()
1684 to prevent this as follows:
1686 void process_level(void)
1688 WRITE_ONCE(msg, get_message());
1689 WRITE_ONCE(flag, true);
1692 void interrupt_handler(void)
1694 if (READ_ONCE(flag))
1695 process_message(READ_ONCE(msg));
1698 Note that the READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() wrappers in
1699 interrupt_handler() are needed if this interrupt handler can itself
1700 be interrupted by something that also accesses 'flag' and 'msg',
1701 for example, a nested interrupt or an NMI. Otherwise, READ_ONCE()
1702 and WRITE_ONCE() are not needed in interrupt_handler() other than
1703 for documentation purposes. (Note also that nested interrupts
1704 do not typically occur in modern Linux kernels, in fact, if an
1705 interrupt handler returns with interrupts enabled, you will get a
1708 You should assume that the compiler can move READ_ONCE() and
1709 WRITE_ONCE() past code not containing READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(),
1710 barrier(), or similar primitives.
1712 This effect could also be achieved using barrier(), but READ_ONCE()
1713 and WRITE_ONCE() are more selective: With READ_ONCE() and
1714 WRITE_ONCE(), the compiler need only forget the contents of the
1715 indicated memory locations, while with barrier() the compiler must
1716 discard the value of all memory locations that it has currented
1717 cached in any machine registers. Of course, the compiler must also
1718 respect the order in which the READ_ONCE()s and WRITE_ONCE()s occur,
1719 though the CPU of course need not do so.
1721 (*) The compiler is within its rights to invent stores to a variable,
1722 as in the following example:
1729 The compiler might save a branch by optimizing this as follows:
1735 In single-threaded code, this is not only safe, but also saves
1736 a branch. Unfortunately, in concurrent code, this optimization
1737 could cause some other CPU to see a spurious value of 42 -- even
1738 if variable 'a' was never zero -- when loading variable 'b'.
1739 Use WRITE_ONCE() to prevent this as follows:
1746 The compiler can also invent loads. These are usually less
1747 damaging, but they can result in cache-line bouncing and thus in
1748 poor performance and scalability. Use READ_ONCE() to prevent
1751 (*) For aligned memory locations whose size allows them to be accessed
1752 with a single memory-reference instruction, prevents "load tearing"
1753 and "store tearing," in which a single large access is replaced by
1754 multiple smaller accesses. For example, given an architecture having
1755 16-bit store instructions with 7-bit immediate fields, the compiler
1756 might be tempted to use two 16-bit store-immediate instructions to
1757 implement the following 32-bit store:
1761 Please note that GCC really does use this sort of optimization,
1762 which is not surprising given that it would likely take more
1763 than two instructions to build the constant and then store it.
1764 This optimization can therefore be a win in single-threaded code.
1765 In fact, a recent bug (since fixed) caused GCC to incorrectly use
1766 this optimization in a volatile store. In the absence of such bugs,
1767 use of WRITE_ONCE() prevents store tearing in the following example:
1769 WRITE_ONCE(p, 0x00010002);
1771 Use of packed structures can also result in load and store tearing,
1774 struct __attribute__((__packed__)) foo {
1779 struct foo foo1, foo2;
1786 Because there are no READ_ONCE() or WRITE_ONCE() wrappers and no
1787 volatile markings, the compiler would be well within its rights to
1788 implement these three assignment statements as a pair of 32-bit
1789 loads followed by a pair of 32-bit stores. This would result in
1790 load tearing on 'foo1.b' and store tearing on 'foo2.b'. READ_ONCE()
1791 and WRITE_ONCE() again prevent tearing in this example:
1794 WRITE_ONCE(foo2.b, READ_ONCE(foo1.b));
1797 All that aside, it is never necessary to use READ_ONCE() and
1798 WRITE_ONCE() on a variable that has been marked volatile. For example,
1799 because 'jiffies' is marked volatile, it is never necessary to
1800 say READ_ONCE(jiffies). The reason for this is that READ_ONCE() and
1801 WRITE_ONCE() are implemented as volatile casts, which has no effect when
1802 its argument is already marked volatile.
1804 Please note that these compiler barriers have no direct effect on the CPU,
1805 which may then reorder things however it wishes.
1811 The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers:
1813 TYPE MANDATORY SMP CONDITIONAL
1814 =============== ======================= ===========================
1815 GENERAL mb() smp_mb()
1816 WRITE wmb() smp_wmb()
1817 READ rmb() smp_rmb()
1818 DATA DEPENDENCY read_barrier_depends() smp_read_barrier_depends()
1821 All memory barriers except the data dependency barriers imply a compiler
1822 barrier. Data dependencies do not impose any additional compiler ordering.
1824 Aside: In the case of data dependencies, the compiler would be expected
1825 to issue the loads in the correct order (eg. `a[b]` would have to load
1826 the value of b before loading a[b]), however there is no guarantee in
1827 the C specification that the compiler may not speculate the value of b
1828 (eg. is equal to 1) and load a before b (eg. tmp = a[1]; if (b != 1)
1829 tmp = a[b]; ). There is also the problem of a compiler reloading b after
1830 having loaded a[b], thus having a newer copy of b than a[b]. A consensus
1831 has not yet been reached about these problems, however the READ_ONCE()
1832 macro is a good place to start looking.
1834 SMP memory barriers are reduced to compiler barriers on uniprocessor compiled
1835 systems because it is assumed that a CPU will appear to be self-consistent,
1836 and will order overlapping accesses correctly with respect to itself.
1837 However, see the subsection on "Virtual Machine Guests" below.
1839 [!] Note that SMP memory barriers _must_ be used to control the ordering of
1840 references to shared memory on SMP systems, though the use of locking instead
1843 Mandatory barriers should not be used to control SMP effects, since mandatory
1844 barriers impose unnecessary overhead on both SMP and UP systems. They may,
1845 however, be used to control MMIO effects on accesses through relaxed memory I/O
1846 windows. These barriers are required even on non-SMP systems as they affect
1847 the order in which memory operations appear to a device by prohibiting both the
1848 compiler and the CPU from reordering them.
1851 There are some more advanced barrier functions:
1853 (*) smp_store_mb(var, value)
1855 This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts a full memory
1856 barrier after it. It isn't guaranteed to insert anything more than a
1857 compiler barrier in a UP compilation.
1860 (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
1861 (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
1863 These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
1864 decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
1865 reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
1867 These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
1868 value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
1870 As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead
1871 and then decrements the object's reference count:
1874 smp_mb__before_atomic();
1875 atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
1877 This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set
1878 *before* the reference counter is decremented.
1880 See Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt for more information.
1886 These are for use with consistent memory to guarantee the ordering
1887 of writes or reads of shared memory accessible to both the CPU and a
1890 For example, consider a device driver that shares memory with a device
1891 and uses a descriptor status value to indicate if the descriptor belongs
1892 to the device or the CPU, and a doorbell to notify it when new
1893 descriptors are available:
1895 if (desc->status != DEVICE_OWN) {
1896 /* do not read data until we own descriptor */
1899 /* read/modify data */
1900 read_data = desc->data;
1901 desc->data = write_data;
1903 /* flush modifications before status update */
1906 /* assign ownership */
1907 desc->status = DEVICE_OWN;
1909 /* force memory to sync before notifying device via MMIO */
1912 /* notify device of new descriptors */
1913 writel(DESC_NOTIFY, doorbell);
1916 The dma_rmb() allows us guarantee the device has released ownership
1917 before we read the data from the descriptor, and the dma_wmb() allows
1918 us to guarantee the data is written to the descriptor before the device
1919 can see it now has ownership. The wmb() is needed to guarantee that the
1920 cache coherent memory writes have completed before attempting a write to
1921 the cache incoherent MMIO region.
1923 See Documentation/DMA-API.txt for more information on consistent memory.
1929 The Linux kernel also has a special barrier for use with memory-mapped I/O
1934 This is a variation on the mandatory write barrier that causes writes to weakly
1935 ordered I/O regions to be partially ordered. Its effects may go beyond the
1936 CPU->Hardware interface and actually affect the hardware at some level.
1938 See the subsection "Acquires vs I/O accesses" for more information.
1941 ===============================
1942 IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
1943 ===============================
1945 Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst
1946 which are locking and scheduling functions.
1948 This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may
1949 provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside
1950 of arch specific code.
1953 LOCK ACQUISITION FUNCTIONS
1954 --------------------------
1956 The Linux kernel has a number of locking constructs:
1964 In all cases there are variants on "ACQUIRE" operations and "RELEASE" operations
1965 for each construct. These operations all imply certain barriers:
1967 (1) ACQUIRE operation implication:
1969 Memory operations issued after the ACQUIRE will be completed after the
1970 ACQUIRE operation has completed.
1972 Memory operations issued before the ACQUIRE may be completed after
1973 the ACQUIRE operation has completed.
1975 (2) RELEASE operation implication:
1977 Memory operations issued before the RELEASE will be completed before the
1978 RELEASE operation has completed.
1980 Memory operations issued after the RELEASE may be completed before the
1981 RELEASE operation has completed.
1983 (3) ACQUIRE vs ACQUIRE implication:
1985 All ACQUIRE operations issued before another ACQUIRE operation will be
1986 completed before that ACQUIRE operation.
1988 (4) ACQUIRE vs RELEASE implication:
1990 All ACQUIRE operations issued before a RELEASE operation will be
1991 completed before the RELEASE operation.
1993 (5) Failed conditional ACQUIRE implication:
1995 Certain locking variants of the ACQUIRE operation may fail, either due to
1996 being unable to get the lock immediately, or due to receiving an unblocked
1997 signal whilst asleep waiting for the lock to become available. Failed
1998 locks do not imply any sort of barrier.
2000 [!] Note: one of the consequences of lock ACQUIREs and RELEASEs being only
2001 one-way barriers is that the effects of instructions outside of a critical
2002 section may seep into the inside of the critical section.
2004 An ACQUIRE followed by a RELEASE may not be assumed to be full memory barrier
2005 because it is possible for an access preceding the ACQUIRE to happen after the
2006 ACQUIRE, and an access following the RELEASE to happen before the RELEASE, and
2007 the two accesses can themselves then cross:
2016 ACQUIRE M, STORE *B, STORE *A, RELEASE M
2018 When the ACQUIRE and RELEASE are a lock acquisition and release,
2019 respectively, this same reordering can occur if the lock's ACQUIRE and
2020 RELEASE are to the same lock variable, but only from the perspective of
2021 another CPU not holding that lock. In short, a ACQUIRE followed by an
2022 RELEASE may -not- be assumed to be a full memory barrier.
2024 Similarly, the reverse case of a RELEASE followed by an ACQUIRE does
2025 not imply a full memory barrier. Therefore, the CPU's execution of the
2026 critical sections corresponding to the RELEASE and the ACQUIRE can cross,
2036 ACQUIRE N, STORE *B, STORE *A, RELEASE M
2038 It might appear that this reordering could introduce a deadlock.
2039 However, this cannot happen because if such a deadlock threatened,
2040 the RELEASE would simply complete, thereby avoiding the deadlock.
2044 One key point is that we are only talking about the CPU doing
2045 the reordering, not the compiler. If the compiler (or, for
2046 that matter, the developer) switched the operations, deadlock
2049 But suppose the CPU reordered the operations. In this case,
2050 the unlock precedes the lock in the assembly code. The CPU
2051 simply elected to try executing the later lock operation first.
2052 If there is a deadlock, this lock operation will simply spin (or
2053 try to sleep, but more on that later). The CPU will eventually
2054 execute the unlock operation (which preceded the lock operation
2055 in the assembly code), which will unravel the potential deadlock,
2056 allowing the lock operation to succeed.
2058 But what if the lock is a sleeplock? In that case, the code will
2059 try to enter the scheduler, where it will eventually encounter
2060 a memory barrier, which will force the earlier unlock operation
2061 to complete, again unraveling the deadlock. There might be
2062 a sleep-unlock race, but the locking primitive needs to resolve
2063 such races properly in any case.
2065 Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled
2066 systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve
2067 anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined
2068 with interrupt disabling operations.
2070 See also the section on "Inter-CPU acquiring barrier effects".
2073 As an example, consider the following:
2084 The following sequence of events is acceptable:
2086 ACQUIRE, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, RELEASE
2088 [+] Note that {*F,*A} indicates a combined access.
2090 But none of the following are:
2092 {*F,*A}, *B, ACQUIRE, *C, *D, RELEASE, *E
2093 *A, *B, *C, ACQUIRE, *D, RELEASE, *E, *F
2094 *A, *B, ACQUIRE, *C, RELEASE, *D, *E, *F
2095 *B, ACQUIRE, *C, *D, RELEASE, {*F,*A}, *E
2099 INTERRUPT DISABLING FUNCTIONS
2100 -----------------------------
2102 Functions that disable interrupts (ACQUIRE equivalent) and enable interrupts
2103 (RELEASE equivalent) will act as compiler barriers only. So if memory or I/O
2104 barriers are required in such a situation, they must be provided from some
2108 SLEEP AND WAKE-UP FUNCTIONS
2109 ---------------------------
2111 Sleeping and waking on an event flagged in global data can be viewed as an
2112 interaction between two pieces of data: the task state of the task waiting for
2113 the event and the global data used to indicate the event. To make sure that
2114 these appear to happen in the right order, the primitives to begin the process
2115 of going to sleep, and the primitives to initiate a wake up imply certain
2118 Firstly, the sleeper normally follows something like this sequence of events:
2121 set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
2122 if (event_indicated)
2127 A general memory barrier is interpolated automatically by set_current_state()
2128 after it has altered the task state:
2131 ===============================
2132 set_current_state();
2134 STORE current->state
2136 LOAD event_indicated
2138 set_current_state() may be wrapped by:
2141 prepare_to_wait_exclusive();
2143 which therefore also imply a general memory barrier after setting the state.
2144 The whole sequence above is available in various canned forms, all of which
2145 interpolate the memory barrier in the right place:
2148 wait_event_interruptible();
2149 wait_event_interruptible_exclusive();
2150 wait_event_interruptible_timeout();
2151 wait_event_killable();
2152 wait_event_timeout();
2157 Secondly, code that performs a wake up normally follows something like this:
2159 event_indicated = 1;
2160 wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
2164 event_indicated = 1;
2165 wake_up_process(event_daemon);
2167 A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they
2168 wake something up. The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so
2169 sits between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
2172 =============================== ===============================
2173 set_current_state(); STORE event_indicated
2174 smp_store_mb(); wake_up();
2175 STORE current->state <write barrier>
2176 <general barrier> STORE current->state
2177 LOAD event_indicated
2179 To repeat, this write memory barrier is present if and only if something
2180 is actually awakened. To see this, consider the following sequence of
2181 events, where X and Y are both initially zero:
2184 =============================== ===============================
2185 X = 1; STORE event_indicated
2186 smp_mb(); wake_up();
2187 Y = 1; wait_event(wq, Y == 1);
2188 wake_up(); load from Y sees 1, no memory barrier
2189 load from X might see 0
2191 In contrast, if a wakeup does occur, CPU 2's load from X would be guaranteed
2194 The available waker functions include:
2200 wake_up_interruptible();
2201 wake_up_interruptible_all();
2202 wake_up_interruptible_nr();
2203 wake_up_interruptible_poll();
2204 wake_up_interruptible_sync();
2205 wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll();
2207 wake_up_locked_poll();
2213 [!] Note that the memory barriers implied by the sleeper and the waker do _not_
2214 order multiple stores before the wake-up with respect to loads of those stored
2215 values after the sleeper has called set_current_state(). For instance, if the
2218 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
2219 if (event_indicated)
2221 __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
2222 do_something(my_data);
2227 event_indicated = 1;
2228 wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
2230 there's no guarantee that the change to event_indicated will be perceived by
2231 the sleeper as coming after the change to my_data. In such a circumstance, the
2232 code on both sides must interpolate its own memory barriers between the
2233 separate data accesses. Thus the above sleeper ought to do:
2235 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
2236 if (event_indicated) {
2238 do_something(my_data);
2241 and the waker should do:
2245 event_indicated = 1;
2246 wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
2249 MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS
2250 -----------------------
2252 Other functions that imply barriers:
2254 (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
2257 ===================================
2258 INTER-CPU ACQUIRING BARRIER EFFECTS
2259 ===================================
2261 On SMP systems locking primitives give a more substantial form of barrier: one
2262 that does affect memory access ordering on other CPUs, within the context of
2263 conflict on any particular lock.
2266 ACQUIRES VS MEMORY ACCESSES
2267 ---------------------------
2269 Consider the following: the system has a pair of spinlocks (M) and (Q), and
2270 three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
2273 =============================== ===============================
2274 WRITE_ONCE(*A, a); WRITE_ONCE(*E, e);
2276 WRITE_ONCE(*B, b); WRITE_ONCE(*F, f);
2277 WRITE_ONCE(*C, c); WRITE_ONCE(*G, g);
2279 WRITE_ONCE(*D, d); WRITE_ONCE(*H, h);
2281 Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU 3 will see the accesses to *A
2282 through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks
2283 on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see:
2285 *E, ACQUIRE M, ACQUIRE Q, *G, *C, *F, *A, *B, RELEASE Q, *D, *H, RELEASE M
2287 But it won't see any of:
2289 *B, *C or *D preceding ACQUIRE M
2290 *A, *B or *C following RELEASE M
2291 *F, *G or *H preceding ACQUIRE Q
2292 *E, *F or *G following RELEASE Q
2296 ACQUIRES VS I/O ACCESSES
2297 ------------------------
2299 Under certain circumstances (especially involving NUMA), I/O accesses within
2300 two spinlocked sections on two different CPUs may be seen as interleaved by the
2301 PCI bridge, because the PCI bridge does not necessarily participate in the
2302 cache-coherence protocol, and is therefore incapable of issuing the required
2303 read memory barriers.
2308 =============================== ===============================
2318 may be seen by the PCI bridge as follows:
2320 STORE *ADDR = 0, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = 1, STORE *DATA = 5
2322 which would probably cause the hardware to malfunction.
2325 What is necessary here is to intervene with an mmiowb() before dropping the
2326 spinlock, for example:
2329 =============================== ===============================
2341 this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU 1 appear at the PCI bridge
2342 before either of the stores issued on CPU 2.
2345 Furthermore, following a store by a load from the same device obviates the need
2346 for the mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load
2350 =============================== ===============================
2361 See Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst for more information.
2364 =================================
2365 WHERE ARE MEMORY BARRIERS NEEDED?
2366 =================================
2368 Under normal operation, memory operation reordering is generally not going to
2369 be a problem as a single-threaded linear piece of code will still appear to
2370 work correctly, even if it's in an SMP kernel. There are, however, four
2371 circumstances in which reordering definitely _could_ be a problem:
2373 (*) Interprocessor interaction.
2375 (*) Atomic operations.
2377 (*) Accessing devices.
2382 INTERPROCESSOR INTERACTION
2383 --------------------------
2385 When there's a system with more than one processor, more than one CPU in the
2386 system may be working on the same data set at the same time. This can cause
2387 synchronisation problems, and the usual way of dealing with them is to use
2388 locks. Locks, however, are quite expensive, and so it may be preferable to
2389 operate without the use of a lock if at all possible. In such a case
2390 operations that affect both CPUs may have to be carefully ordered to prevent
2393 Consider, for example, the R/W semaphore slow path. Here a waiting process is
2394 queued on the semaphore, by virtue of it having a piece of its stack linked to
2395 the semaphore's list of waiting processes:
2397 struct rw_semaphore {
2400 struct list_head waiters;
2403 struct rwsem_waiter {
2404 struct list_head list;
2405 struct task_struct *task;
2408 To wake up a particular waiter, the up_read() or up_write() functions have to:
2410 (1) read the next pointer from this waiter's record to know as to where the
2411 next waiter record is;
2413 (2) read the pointer to the waiter's task structure;
2415 (3) clear the task pointer to tell the waiter it has been given the semaphore;
2417 (4) call wake_up_process() on the task; and
2419 (5) release the reference held on the waiter's task struct.
2421 In other words, it has to perform this sequence of events:
2423 LOAD waiter->list.next;
2429 and if any of these steps occur out of order, then the whole thing may
2432 Once it has queued itself and dropped the semaphore lock, the waiter does not
2433 get the lock again; it instead just waits for its task pointer to be cleared
2434 before proceeding. Since the record is on the waiter's stack, this means that
2435 if the task pointer is cleared _before_ the next pointer in the list is read,
2436 another CPU might start processing the waiter and might clobber the waiter's
2437 stack before the up*() function has a chance to read the next pointer.
2439 Consider then what might happen to the above sequence of events:
2442 =============================== ===============================
2449 Woken up by other event
2454 foo() clobbers *waiter
2456 LOAD waiter->list.next;
2459 This could be dealt with using the semaphore lock, but then the down_xxx()
2460 function has to needlessly get the spinlock again after being woken up.
2462 The way to deal with this is to insert a general SMP memory barrier:
2464 LOAD waiter->list.next;
2471 In this case, the barrier makes a guarantee that all memory accesses before the
2472 barrier will appear to happen before all the memory accesses after the barrier
2473 with respect to the other CPUs on the system. It does _not_ guarantee that all
2474 the memory accesses before the barrier will be complete by the time the barrier
2475 instruction itself is complete.
2477 On a UP system - where this wouldn't be a problem - the smp_mb() is just a
2478 compiler barrier, thus making sure the compiler emits the instructions in the
2479 right order without actually intervening in the CPU. Since there's only one
2480 CPU, that CPU's dependency ordering logic will take care of everything else.
2486 Whilst they are technically interprocessor interaction considerations, atomic
2487 operations are noted specially as some of them imply full memory barriers and
2488 some don't, but they're very heavily relied on as a group throughout the
2491 See Documentation/atomic_t.txt for more information.
2497 Many devices can be memory mapped, and so appear to the CPU as if they're just
2498 a set of memory locations. To control such a device, the driver usually has to
2499 make the right memory accesses in exactly the right order.
2501 However, having a clever CPU or a clever compiler creates a potential problem
2502 in that the carefully sequenced accesses in the driver code won't reach the
2503 device in the requisite order if the CPU or the compiler thinks it is more
2504 efficient to reorder, combine or merge accesses - something that would cause
2505 the device to malfunction.
2507 Inside of the Linux kernel, I/O should be done through the appropriate accessor
2508 routines - such as inb() or writel() - which know how to make such accesses
2509 appropriately sequential. Whilst this, for the most part, renders the explicit
2510 use of memory barriers unnecessary, there are a couple of situations where they
2513 (1) On some systems, I/O stores are not strongly ordered across all CPUs, and
2514 so for _all_ general drivers locks should be used and mmiowb() must be
2515 issued prior to unlocking the critical section.
2517 (2) If the accessor functions are used to refer to an I/O memory window with
2518 relaxed memory access properties, then _mandatory_ memory barriers are
2519 required to enforce ordering.
2521 See Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst for more information.
2527 A driver may be interrupted by its own interrupt service routine, and thus the
2528 two parts of the driver may interfere with each other's attempts to control or
2531 This may be alleviated - at least in part - by disabling local interrupts (a
2532 form of locking), such that the critical operations are all contained within
2533 the interrupt-disabled section in the driver. Whilst the driver's interrupt
2534 routine is executing, the driver's core may not run on the same CPU, and its
2535 interrupt is not permitted to happen again until the current interrupt has been
2536 handled, thus the interrupt handler does not need to lock against that.
2538 However, consider a driver that was talking to an ethernet card that sports an
2539 address register and a data register. If that driver's core talks to the card
2540 under interrupt-disablement and then the driver's interrupt handler is invoked:
2551 The store to the data register might happen after the second store to the
2552 address register if ordering rules are sufficiently relaxed:
2554 STORE *ADDR = 3, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = y, q = LOAD *DATA
2557 If ordering rules are relaxed, it must be assumed that accesses done inside an
2558 interrupt disabled section may leak outside of it and may interleave with
2559 accesses performed in an interrupt - and vice versa - unless implicit or
2560 explicit barriers are used.
2562 Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such
2563 sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O
2564 registers that form implicit I/O barriers. If this isn't sufficient then an
2565 mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly.
2568 A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines
2569 running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other. If such a case is
2570 likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering.
2573 ==========================
2574 KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS
2575 ==========================
2577 When accessing I/O memory, drivers should use the appropriate accessor
2582 These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but
2583 that's primarily a CPU-specific concept. The i386 and x86_64 processors
2584 do indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
2585 CPUs don't have such a concept.
2587 The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept which - on such
2588 CPUs as i386 and x86_64 - readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O
2589 space. However, it may also be mapped as a virtual I/O space in the CPU's
2590 memory map, particularly on those CPUs that don't support alternate I/O
2593 Accesses to this space may be fully synchronous (as on i386), but
2594 intermediary bridges (such as the PCI host bridge) may not fully honour
2597 They are guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to each other.
2599 They are not guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to other types of
2600 memory and I/O operation.
2602 (*) readX(), writeX():
2604 Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with
2605 respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics
2606 defined for the memory window through which they're accessing. On later
2607 i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the
2610 Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined,
2611 provided they're not accessing a prefetchable device.
2613 However, intermediary hardware (such as a PCI bridge) may indulge in
2614 deferral if it so wishes; to flush a store, a load from the same location
2615 is preferred[*], but a load from the same device or from configuration
2616 space should suffice for PCI.
2618 [*] NOTE! attempting to load from the same location as was written to may
2619 cause a malfunction - consider the 16550 Rx/Tx serial registers for
2622 Used with prefetchable I/O memory, an mmiowb() barrier may be required to
2623 force stores to be ordered.
2625 Please refer to the PCI specification for more information on interactions
2626 between PCI transactions.
2628 (*) readX_relaxed(), writeX_relaxed()
2630 These are similar to readX() and writeX(), but provide weaker memory
2631 ordering guarantees. Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
2632 respect to normal memory accesses (e.g. DMA buffers) nor do they guarantee
2633 ordering with respect to LOCK or UNLOCK operations. If the latter is
2634 required, an mmiowb() barrier can be used. Note that relaxed accesses to
2635 the same peripheral are guaranteed to be ordered with respect to each
2638 (*) ioreadX(), iowriteX()
2640 These will perform appropriately for the type of access they're actually
2641 doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX().
2644 ========================================
2645 ASSUMED MINIMUM EXECUTION ORDERING MODEL
2646 ========================================
2648 It has to be assumed that the conceptual CPU is weakly-ordered but that it will
2649 maintain the appearance of program causality with respect to itself. Some CPUs
2650 (such as i386 or x86_64) are more constrained than others (such as powerpc or
2651 frv), and so the most relaxed case (namely DEC Alpha) must be assumed outside
2652 of arch-specific code.
2654 This means that it must be considered that the CPU will execute its instruction
2655 stream in any order it feels like - or even in parallel - provided that if an
2656 instruction in the stream depends on an earlier instruction, then that
2657 earlier instruction must be sufficiently complete[*] before the later
2658 instruction may proceed; in other words: provided that the appearance of
2659 causality is maintained.
2661 [*] Some instructions have more than one effect - such as changing the
2662 condition codes, changing registers or changing memory - and different
2663 instructions may depend on different effects.
2665 A CPU may also discard any instruction sequence that winds up having no
2666 ultimate effect. For example, if two adjacent instructions both load an
2667 immediate value into the same register, the first may be discarded.
2670 Similarly, it has to be assumed that compiler might reorder the instruction
2671 stream in any way it sees fit, again provided the appearance of causality is
2675 ============================
2676 THE EFFECTS OF THE CPU CACHE
2677 ============================
2679 The way cached memory operations are perceived across the system is affected to
2680 a certain extent by the caches that lie between CPUs and memory, and by the
2681 memory coherence system that maintains the consistency of state in the system.
2683 As far as the way a CPU interacts with another part of the system through the
2684 caches goes, the memory system has to include the CPU's caches, and memory
2685 barriers for the most part act at the interface between the CPU and its cache
2686 (memory barriers logically act on the dotted line in the following diagram):
2688 <--- CPU ---> : <----------- Memory ----------->
2690 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+
2691 | | | | : | | | | +--------+
2692 | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | | | |
2693 | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | |
2694 | | | Queue | : | | | |--->| Memory |
2695 | | | | : | | | | | |
2696 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | |
2697 : | Cache | +--------+
2699 : | Mechanism | +--------+
2700 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ | | | |
2701 | | | | : | | | | | |
2702 | CPU | | Memory | : | CPU | | |--->| Device |
2703 | Core |--->| Access |----->| Cache |<-->| | | |
2704 | | | Queue | : | | | | | |
2705 | | | | : | | | | +--------+
2706 +--------+ +--------+ : +--------+ +-----------+
2710 Although any particular load or store may not actually appear outside of the
2711 CPU that issued it since it may have been satisfied within the CPU's own cache,
2712 it will still appear as if the full memory access had taken place as far as the
2713 other CPUs are concerned since the cache coherency mechanisms will migrate the
2714 cacheline over to the accessing CPU and propagate the effects upon conflict.
2716 The CPU core may execute instructions in any order it deems fit, provided the
2717 expected program causality appears to be maintained. Some of the instructions
2718 generate load and store operations which then go into the queue of memory
2719 accesses to be performed. The core may place these in the queue in any order
2720 it wishes, and continue execution until it is forced to wait for an instruction
2723 What memory barriers are concerned with is controlling the order in which
2724 accesses cross from the CPU side of things to the memory side of things, and
2725 the order in which the effects are perceived to happen by the other observers
2728 [!] Memory barriers are _not_ needed within a given CPU, as CPUs always see
2729 their own loads and stores as if they had happened in program order.
2731 [!] MMIO or other device accesses may bypass the cache system. This depends on
2732 the properties of the memory window through which devices are accessed and/or
2733 the use of any special device communication instructions the CPU may have.
2739 Life isn't quite as simple as it may appear above, however: for while the
2740 caches are expected to be coherent, there's no guarantee that that coherency
2741 will be ordered. This means that whilst changes made on one CPU will
2742 eventually become visible on all CPUs, there's no guarantee that they will
2743 become apparent in the same order on those other CPUs.
2746 Consider dealing with a system that has a pair of CPUs (1 & 2), each of which
2747 has a pair of parallel data caches (CPU 1 has A/B, and CPU 2 has C/D):
2752 +--------+ : +--->| Cache A |<------->| |
2753 | | : | +---------+ | |
2755 | | : | +---------+ | |
2756 +--------+ : +--->| Cache B |<------->| |
2759 : +---------+ | System |
2760 +--------+ : +--->| Cache C |<------->| |
2761 | | : | +---------+ | |
2763 | | : | +---------+ | |
2764 +--------+ : +--->| Cache D |<------->| |
2769 Imagine the system has the following properties:
2771 (*) an odd-numbered cache line may be in cache A, cache C or it may still be
2774 (*) an even-numbered cache line may be in cache B, cache D or it may still be
2777 (*) whilst the CPU core is interrogating one cache, the other cache may be
2778 making use of the bus to access the rest of the system - perhaps to
2779 displace a dirty cacheline or to do a speculative load;
2781 (*) each cache has a queue of operations that need to be applied to that cache
2782 to maintain coherency with the rest of the system;
2784 (*) the coherency queue is not flushed by normal loads to lines already
2785 present in the cache, even though the contents of the queue may
2786 potentially affect those loads.
2788 Imagine, then, that two writes are made on the first CPU, with a write barrier
2789 between them to guarantee that they will appear to reach that CPU's caches in
2790 the requisite order:
2793 =============== =============== =======================================
2794 u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
2796 smp_wmb(); Make sure change to v is visible before
2798 <A:modify v=2> v is now in cache A exclusively
2800 <B:modify p=&v> p is now in cache B exclusively
2802 The write memory barrier forces the other CPUs in the system to perceive that
2803 the local CPU's caches have apparently been updated in the correct order. But
2804 now imagine that the second CPU wants to read those values:
2807 =============== =============== =======================================
2812 The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in the expected order, as the
2813 cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches whilst
2814 the update to the cacheline holding v is delayed in the other of the second
2815 CPU's caches by some other cache event:
2818 =============== =============== =======================================
2819 u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
2822 <A:modify v=2> <C:busy>
2826 <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v>
2829 <C:read *q> Reads from v before v updated in cache
2833 Basically, whilst both cachelines will be updated on CPU 2 eventually, there's
2834 no guarantee that, without intervention, the order of update will be the same
2835 as that committed on CPU 1.
2838 To intervene, we need to interpolate a data dependency barrier or a read
2839 barrier between the loads. This will force the cache to commit its coherency
2840 queue before processing any further requests:
2843 =============== =============== =======================================
2844 u == 0, v == 1 and p == &u, q == &u
2847 <A:modify v=2> <C:busy>
2851 <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v>
2853 smp_read_barrier_depends()
2857 <C:read *q> Reads from v after v updated in cache
2860 This sort of problem can be encountered on DEC Alpha processors as they have a
2861 split cache that improves performance by making better use of the data bus.
2862 Whilst most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory
2863 access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on.
2865 Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various
2866 cachelets for normal memory accesses. The semantics of the Alpha removes the
2867 need for coordination in the absence of memory barriers.
2870 CACHE COHERENCY VS DMA
2871 ----------------------
2873 Not all systems maintain cache coherency with respect to devices doing DMA. In
2874 such cases, a device attempting DMA may obtain stale data from RAM because
2875 dirty cache lines may be resident in the caches of various CPUs, and may not
2876 have been written back to RAM yet. To deal with this, the appropriate part of
2877 the kernel must flush the overlapping bits of cache on each CPU (and maybe
2878 invalidate them as well).
2880 In addition, the data DMA'd to RAM by a device may be overwritten by dirty
2881 cache lines being written back to RAM from a CPU's cache after the device has
2882 installed its own data, or cache lines present in the CPU's cache may simply
2883 obscure the fact that RAM has been updated, until at such time as the cacheline
2884 is discarded from the CPU's cache and reloaded. To deal with this, the
2885 appropriate part of the kernel must invalidate the overlapping bits of the
2888 See Documentation/cachetlb.txt for more information on cache management.
2891 CACHE COHERENCY VS MMIO
2892 -----------------------
2894 Memory mapped I/O usually takes place through memory locations that are part of
2895 a window in the CPU's memory space that has different properties assigned than
2896 the usual RAM directed window.
2898 Amongst these properties is usually the fact that such accesses bypass the
2899 caching entirely and go directly to the device buses. This means MMIO accesses
2900 may, in effect, overtake accesses to cached memory that were emitted earlier.
2901 A memory barrier isn't sufficient in such a case, but rather the cache must be
2902 flushed between the cached memory write and the MMIO access if the two are in
2906 =========================
2907 THE THINGS CPUS GET UP TO
2908 =========================
2910 A programmer might take it for granted that the CPU will perform memory
2911 operations in exactly the order specified, so that if the CPU is, for example,
2912 given the following piece of code to execute:
2920 they would then expect that the CPU will complete the memory operation for each
2921 instruction before moving on to the next one, leading to a definite sequence of
2922 operations as seen by external observers in the system:
2924 LOAD *A, STORE *B, LOAD *C, LOAD *D, STORE *E.
2927 Reality is, of course, much messier. With many CPUs and compilers, the above
2928 assumption doesn't hold because:
2930 (*) loads are more likely to need to be completed immediately to permit
2931 execution progress, whereas stores can often be deferred without a
2934 (*) loads may be done speculatively, and the result discarded should it prove
2935 to have been unnecessary;
2937 (*) loads may be done speculatively, leading to the result having been fetched
2938 at the wrong time in the expected sequence of events;
2940 (*) the order of the memory accesses may be rearranged to promote better use
2941 of the CPU buses and caches;
2943 (*) loads and stores may be combined to improve performance when talking to
2944 memory or I/O hardware that can do batched accesses of adjacent locations,
2945 thus cutting down on transaction setup costs (memory and PCI devices may
2946 both be able to do this); and
2948 (*) the CPU's data cache may affect the ordering, and whilst cache-coherency
2949 mechanisms may alleviate this - once the store has actually hit the cache
2950 - there's no guarantee that the coherency management will be propagated in
2951 order to other CPUs.
2953 So what another CPU, say, might actually observe from the above piece of code
2956 LOAD *A, ..., LOAD {*C,*D}, STORE *E, STORE *B
2958 (Where "LOAD {*C,*D}" is a combined load)
2961 However, it is guaranteed that a CPU will be self-consistent: it will see its
2962 _own_ accesses appear to be correctly ordered, without the need for a memory
2963 barrier. For instance with the following code:
2972 and assuming no intervention by an external influence, it can be assumed that
2973 the final result will appear to be:
2975 U == the original value of *A
2980 The code above may cause the CPU to generate the full sequence of memory
2983 U=LOAD *A, STORE *A=V, STORE *A=W, X=LOAD *A, STORE *A=Y, Z=LOAD *A
2985 in that order, but, without intervention, the sequence may have almost any
2986 combination of elements combined or discarded, provided the program's view
2987 of the world remains consistent. Note that READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()
2988 are -not- optional in the above example, as there are architectures
2989 where a given CPU might reorder successive loads to the same location.
2990 On such architectures, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() do whatever is
2991 necessary to prevent this, for example, on Itanium the volatile casts
2992 used by READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() cause GCC to emit the special ld.acq
2993 and st.rel instructions (respectively) that prevent such reordering.
2995 The compiler may also combine, discard or defer elements of the sequence before
2996 the CPU even sees them.
3007 since, without either a write barrier or an WRITE_ONCE(), it can be
3008 assumed that the effect of the storage of V to *A is lost. Similarly:
3013 may, without a memory barrier or an READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(), be
3019 and the LOAD operation never appear outside of the CPU.
3022 AND THEN THERE'S THE ALPHA
3023 --------------------------
3025 The DEC Alpha CPU is one of the most relaxed CPUs there is. Not only that,
3026 some versions of the Alpha CPU have a split data cache, permitting them to have
3027 two semantically-related cache lines updated at separate times. This is where
3028 the data dependency barrier really becomes necessary as this synchronises both
3029 caches with the memory coherence system, thus making it seem like pointer
3030 changes vs new data occur in the right order.
3032 The Alpha defines the Linux kernel's memory barrier model.
3034 See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above.
3037 VIRTUAL MACHINE GUESTS
3038 ----------------------
3040 Guests running within virtual machines might be affected by SMP effects even if
3041 the guest itself is compiled without SMP support. This is an artifact of
3042 interfacing with an SMP host while running an UP kernel. Using mandatory
3043 barriers for this use-case would be possible but is often suboptimal.
3045 To handle this case optimally, low-level virt_mb() etc macros are available.
3046 These have the same effect as smp_mb() etc when SMP is enabled, but generate
3047 identical code for SMP and non-SMP systems. For example, virtual machine guests
3048 should use virt_mb() rather than smp_mb() when synchronizing against a
3049 (possibly SMP) host.
3051 These are equivalent to smp_mb() etc counterparts in all other respects,
3052 in particular, they do not control MMIO effects: to control
3053 MMIO effects, use mandatory barriers.
3063 Memory barriers can be used to implement circular buffering without the need
3064 of a lock to serialise the producer with the consumer. See:
3066 Documentation/circular-buffers.txt
3075 Alpha AXP Architecture Reference Manual, Second Edition (Sites & Witek,
3077 Chapter 5.2: Physical Address Space Characteristics
3078 Chapter 5.4: Caches and Write Buffers
3079 Chapter 5.5: Data Sharing
3080 Chapter 5.6: Read/Write Ordering
3082 AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming
3083 Chapter 7.1: Memory-Access Ordering
3084 Chapter 7.4: Buffering and Combining Memory Writes
3086 ARM Architecture Reference Manual (ARMv8, for ARMv8-A architecture profile)
3087 Chapter B2: The AArch64 Application Level Memory Model
3089 IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3:
3090 System Programming Guide
3091 Chapter 7.1: Locked Atomic Operations
3092 Chapter 7.2: Memory Ordering
3093 Chapter 7.4: Serializing Instructions
3095 The SPARC Architecture Manual, Version 9
3096 Chapter 8: Memory Models
3097 Appendix D: Formal Specification of the Memory Models
3098 Appendix J: Programming with the Memory Models
3100 Storage in the PowerPC (Stone and Fitzgerald)
3102 UltraSPARC Programmer Reference Manual
3103 Chapter 5: Memory Accesses and Cacheability
3104 Chapter 15: Sparc-V9 Memory Models
3106 UltraSPARC III Cu User's Manual
3107 Chapter 9: Memory Models
3109 UltraSPARC IIIi Processor User's Manual
3110 Chapter 8: Memory Models
3112 UltraSPARC Architecture 2005
3114 Appendix D: Formal Specifications of the Memory Models
3116 UltraSPARC T1 Supplement to the UltraSPARC Architecture 2005
3117 Chapter 8: Memory Models
3118 Appendix F: Caches and Cache Coherency
3120 Solaris Internals, Core Kernel Architecture, p63-68:
3121 Chapter 3.3: Hardware Considerations for Locks and
3124 Unix Systems for Modern Architectures, Symmetric Multiprocessing and Caching
3125 for Kernel Programmers:
3126 Chapter 13: Other Memory Models
3128 Intel Itanium Architecture Software Developer's Manual: Volume 1:
3129 Section 2.6: Speculation
3130 Section 4.4: Memory Access
git.samba.org / sfrench / cifs-2.6.git / blob