documentation: Clarify control-dependency pairing
This commit explicitly states that control dependencies pair normally
with other barriers, and gives an example of such pairing.
Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index ca2387e..6974f1c 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -592,9 +592,9 @@
CONTROL DEPENDENCIES
--------------------
-A control dependency requires a full read memory barrier, not simply a data
-dependency barrier to make it work correctly. Consider the following bit of
-code:
+A load-load control dependency requires a full read memory barrier, not
+simply a data dependency barrier to make it work correctly. Consider the
+following bit of code:
q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
if (q) {
@@ -615,14 +615,15 @@
}
However, stores are not speculated. This means that ordering -is- provided
-in the following example:
+for load-store control dependencies, as in the following example:
q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
if (q) {
ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
}
-Please note that ACCESS_ONCE() is not optional! Without the
+Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.
+That said, please note that ACCESS_ONCE() is not optional! Without the
ACCESS_ONCE(), might combine the load from 'a' with other loads from
'a', and the store to 'b' with other stores to 'b', with possible highly
counterintuitive effects on ordering.
@@ -813,6 +814,8 @@
barrier() can help to preserve your control dependency. Please
see the Compiler Barrier section for more information.
+ (*) Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.
+
(*) Control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. If you
need transitivity, use smp_mb().
@@ -823,14 +826,14 @@
When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
-General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair with
-most other types of barriers, albeit without transitivity. An acquire
-barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also pair with other
-barriers, including of course general barriers. A write barrier pairs
-with a data dependency barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier,
-a read barrier, or a general barrier. Similarly a read barrier or a
-data dependency barrier pairs with a write barrier, an acquire barrier,
-a release barrier, or a general barrier:
+General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair with most
+other types of barriers, albeit without transitivity. An acquire barrier
+pairs with a release barrier, but both may also pair with other barriers,
+including of course general barriers. A write barrier pairs with a data
+dependency barrier, a control dependency, an acquire barrier, a release
+barrier, a read barrier, or a general barrier. Similarly a read barrier,
+control dependency, or a data dependency barrier pairs with a write
+barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier, or a general barrier:
CPU 1 CPU 2
=============== ===============
@@ -850,6 +853,19 @@
<data dependency barrier>
y = *x;
+Or even:
+
+ CPU 1 CPU 2
+ =============== ===============================
+ r1 = ACCESS_ONCE(y);
+ <general barrier>
+ ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 1; if (r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(x)) {
+ <implicit control dependency>
+ ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 1;
+ }
+
+ assert(r1 == 0 || r2 == 0);
+
Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
the "weaker" type.
