From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, serue@us.ibm.com, steved@redhat.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:37:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <21239.1240407420@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090416143351.GD6532@redhat.com>
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > That's an interesting question. Should wake_up() imply a barrier of any
> > sort, I wonder. Well, __wake_up() does impose a barrier as it uses a
> > spinlock, but I wonder if that's sufficient.
>
> wake_up() does imply the barrier. Note the smp_wmb() in try_to_wake_up().
> And in fact this wmb() implies mb(), because spin_lock() itself is STORE,
> and the futher LOADs can't leak up before spin_lock().
>
> But afaics, this doesn't matter? prepare_to_wait() sets task->state under
> wait_queue_head_t->lock and wake_up() takes this look too, so we can't miss
> the event.
>
> Or I completely misunderstood the issue...
The problem is not what wake_up() and co. do, it's what you are allowed to
assume that they do.
However, I think you're right, and that we can assume they imply a full memory
barrier. To this end, I've attached a patch to document this.
David
---
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier
Add to the memory barriers document to note that wake_up(), complete() and
co. all imply a full memory barrier.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 4 ++++
kernel/sched.c | 10 ++++++++++
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index f5b7127..2c8062c 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1224,6 +1224,10 @@ Other functions that imply barriers:
(*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
+ (*) wake_up(), try_to_wake_up() and co. imply a full memory barrier.
+
+ (*) complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier.
+
=================================
INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index b902e58..faccaa0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2337,6 +2337,8 @@ static int sched_balance_self(int cpu, int flag)
* runnable without the overhead of this.
*
* returns failure only if the task is already active.
+ *
+ * It may be assumed that this function implies a full memory barrier.
*/
static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int sync)
{
@@ -5241,6 +5243,8 @@ void __wake_up_common(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
* @mode: which threads
* @nr_exclusive: how many wake-one or wake-many threads to wake up
* @key: is directly passed to the wakeup function
+ *
+ * It may be assumed that this function implies a full memory barrier.
*/
void __wake_up(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
int nr_exclusive, void *key)
@@ -5279,6 +5283,8 @@ void __wake_up_locked_key(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode, void *key)
* with each other. This can prevent needless bouncing between CPUs.
*
* On UP it can prevent extra preemption.
+ *
+ * It may be assumed that this function implies a full memory barrier.
*/
void __wake_up_sync_key(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
int nr_exclusive, void *key)
@@ -5315,6 +5321,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_sync); /* For internal use only */
* awakened in the same order in which they were queued.
*
* See also complete_all(), wait_for_completion() and related routines.
+ *
+ * It may be assumed that this function implies a full memory barrier.
*/
void complete(struct completion *x)
{
@@ -5332,6 +5340,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete);
* @x: holds the state of this particular completion
*
* This will wake up all threads waiting on this particular completion event.
+ *
+ * It may be assumed that this function implies a full memory barrier.
*/
void complete_all(struct completion *x)
{
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-22 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-13 18:17 [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 19:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:40 ` David Howells
2009-04-13 21:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:57 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 22:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-15 23:27 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-16 9:10 ` David Howells
2009-04-16 14:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 13:37 ` David Howells [this message]
2009-04-22 13:51 ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 14:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 15:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 15:12 ` David Howells
2009-04-22 15:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 16:23 ` David Howells
2009-04-22 17:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:32 ` [PATCH] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish_wait() and co. imply a " David Howells
2009-04-23 16:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 11:46 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 15:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:48 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28 10:18 ` David Howells
2009-04-28 13:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:53 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 20:35 ` David Howells
2009-04-23 21:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 21:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:36 ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full " Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 20:37 ` David Howells
2009-04-23 16:00 ` [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait David Howells
2009-04-23 16:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:35 ` David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=21239.1240407420@redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=steved@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.