summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt')
-rw-r--r--tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt109
1 files changed, 57 insertions, 52 deletions
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
index e91a2eb19592..f9d610d5a1a4 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
+++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
@@ -1122,12 +1122,10 @@ maintain at least the appearance of FIFO order.
In practice, this difficulty is solved by inserting a special fence
between P1's two loads when the kernel is compiled for the Alpha
architecture. In fact, as of version 4.15, the kernel automatically
-adds this fence (called smp_read_barrier_depends() and defined as
-nothing at all on non-Alpha builds) after every READ_ONCE() and atomic
-load. The effect of the fence is to cause the CPU not to execute any
-po-later instructions until after the local cache has finished
-processing all the stores it has already received. Thus, if the code
-was changed to:
+adds this fence after every READ_ONCE() and atomic load on Alpha. The
+effect of the fence is to cause the CPU not to execute any po-later
+instructions until after the local cache has finished processing all
+the stores it has already received. Thus, if the code was changed to:
P1()
{
@@ -1146,14 +1144,14 @@ READ_ONCE() or another synchronization primitive rather than accessed
directly.
The LKMM requires that smp_rmb(), acquire fences, and strong fences
-share this property with smp_read_barrier_depends(): They do not allow
-the CPU to execute any po-later instructions (or po-later loads in the
-case of smp_rmb()) until all outstanding stores have been processed by
-the local cache. In the case of a strong fence, the CPU first has to
-wait for all of its po-earlier stores to propagate to every other CPU
-in the system; then it has to wait for the local cache to process all
-the stores received as of that time -- not just the stores received
-when the strong fence began.
+share this property: They do not allow the CPU to execute any po-later
+instructions (or po-later loads in the case of smp_rmb()) until all
+outstanding stores have been processed by the local cache. In the
+case of a strong fence, the CPU first has to wait for all of its
+po-earlier stores to propagate to every other CPU in the system; then
+it has to wait for the local cache to process all the stores received
+as of that time -- not just the stores received when the strong fence
+began.
And of course, none of this matters for any architecture other than
Alpha.
@@ -1987,28 +1985,36 @@ outcome undefined.
In technical terms, the compiler is allowed to assume that when the
program executes, there will not be any data races. A "data race"
-occurs when two conflicting memory accesses execute concurrently;
-two memory accesses "conflict" if:
+occurs when there are two memory accesses such that:
- they access the same location,
+1. they access the same location,
- they occur on different CPUs (or in different threads on the
- same CPU),
+2. at least one of them is a store,
- at least one of them is a plain access,
+3. at least one of them is plain,
- and at least one of them is a store.
+4. they occur on different CPUs (or in different threads on the
+ same CPU), and
-The LKMM tries to determine whether a program contains two conflicting
-accesses which may execute concurrently; if it does then the LKMM says
-there is a potential data race and makes no predictions about the
-program's outcome.
+5. they execute concurrently.
-Determining whether two accesses conflict is easy; you can see that
-all the concepts involved in the definition above are already part of
-the memory model. The hard part is telling whether they may execute
-concurrently. The LKMM takes a conservative attitude, assuming that
-accesses may be concurrent unless it can prove they cannot.
+In the literature, two accesses are said to "conflict" if they satisfy
+1 and 2 above. We'll go a little farther and say that two accesses
+are "race candidates" if they satisfy 1 - 4. Thus, whether or not two
+race candidates actually do race in a given execution depends on
+whether they are concurrent.
+
+The LKMM tries to determine whether a program contains race candidates
+which may execute concurrently; if it does then the LKMM says there is
+a potential data race and makes no predictions about the program's
+outcome.
+
+Determining whether two accesses are race candidates is easy; you can
+see that all the concepts involved in the definition above are already
+part of the memory model. The hard part is telling whether they may
+execute concurrently. The LKMM takes a conservative attitude,
+assuming that accesses may be concurrent unless it can prove they
+are not.
If two memory accesses aren't concurrent then one must execute before
the other. Therefore the LKMM decides two accesses aren't concurrent
@@ -2171,8 +2177,8 @@ again, now using plain accesses for buf:
}
This program does not contain a data race. Although the U and V
-accesses conflict, the LKMM can prove they are not concurrent as
-follows:
+accesses are race candidates, the LKMM can prove they are not
+concurrent as follows:
The smp_wmb() fence in P0 is both a compiler barrier and a
cumul-fence. It guarantees that no matter what hash of
@@ -2326,12 +2332,11 @@ could now perform the load of x before the load of ptr (there might be
a control dependency but no address dependency at the machine level).
Finally, it turns out there is a situation in which a plain write does
-not need to be w-post-bounded: when it is separated from the
-conflicting access by a fence. At first glance this may seem
-impossible. After all, to be conflicting the second access has to be
-on a different CPU from the first, and fences don't link events on
-different CPUs. Well, normal fences don't -- but rcu-fence can!
-Here's an example:
+not need to be w-post-bounded: when it is separated from the other
+race-candidate access by a fence. At first glance this may seem
+impossible. After all, to be race candidates the two accesses must
+be on different CPUs, and fences don't link events on different CPUs.
+Well, normal fences don't -- but rcu-fence can! Here's an example:
int x, y;
@@ -2367,7 +2372,7 @@ concurrent and there is no race, even though P1's plain store to y
isn't w-post-bounded by any marked accesses.
Putting all this material together yields the following picture. For
-two conflicting stores W and W', where W ->co W', the LKMM says the
+race-candidate stores W and W', where W ->co W', the LKMM says the
stores don't race if W can be linked to W' by a
w-post-bounded ; vis ; w-pre-bounded
@@ -2380,8 +2385,8 @@ sequence, and if W' is plain then they also have to be linked by a
w-post-bounded ; vis ; r-pre-bounded
-sequence. For a conflicting load R and store W, the LKMM says the two
-accesses don't race if R can be linked to W by an
+sequence. For race-candidate load R and store W, the LKMM says the
+two accesses don't race if R can be linked to W by an
r-post-bounded ; xb* ; w-pre-bounded
@@ -2413,20 +2418,20 @@ is, the rules governing the memory subsystem's choice of a store to
satisfy a load request and its determination of where a store will
fall in the coherence order):
- If R and W conflict and it is possible to link R to W by one
- of the xb* sequences listed above, then W ->rfe R is not
- allowed (i.e., a load cannot read from a store that it
+ If R and W are race candidates and it is possible to link R to
+ W by one of the xb* sequences listed above, then W ->rfe R is
+ not allowed (i.e., a load cannot read from a store that it
executes before, even if one or both is plain).
- If W and R conflict and it is possible to link W to R by one
- of the vis sequences listed above, then R ->fre W is not
- allowed (i.e., if a store is visible to a load then the load
- must read from that store or one coherence-after it).
+ If W and R are race candidates and it is possible to link W to
+ R by one of the vis sequences listed above, then R ->fre W is
+ not allowed (i.e., if a store is visible to a load then the
+ load must read from that store or one coherence-after it).
- If W and W' conflict and it is possible to link W to W' by one
- of the vis sequences listed above, then W' ->co W is not
- allowed (i.e., if one store is visible to a second then the
- second must come after the first in the coherence order).
+ If W and W' are race candidates and it is possible to link W
+ to W' by one of the vis sequences listed above, then W' ->co W
+ is not allowed (i.e., if one store is visible to a second then
+ the second must come after the first in the coherence order).
This is the extent to which the LKMM deals with plain accesses.
Perhaps it could say more (for example, plain accesses might