From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Another couple of alterations to the memory barrier doc
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:42:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10587.1150108931@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> (raw)
The attached patch makes another couple of alterations to the memory barrier
document following suggestions by Alan Stern and in co-operation with Paul
McKenney:
(*) Rework the point of introduction of memory barriers and the description
of what they are to reiterate why they're needed.
(*) Modify a statement about the use of data dependency barriers to note that
other barriers can be used instead (as they imply DD-barriers).
Signed-Off-By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---
warthog>diffstat -p1 /tmp/mb.diff
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 15 ++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 4710845..cc53f47 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -262,9 +262,14 @@ What is required is some way of interven
CPU to restrict the order.
Memory barriers are such interventions. They impose a perceived partial
-ordering between the memory operations specified on either side of the barrier.
-They request that the sequence of memory events generated appears to other
-parts of the system as if the barrier is effective on that CPU.
+ordering over the memory operations on either side of the barrier.
+
+Such enforcement is important because the CPUs and other devices in a system
+can use a variety of tricks to improve performance - including reordering,
+deferral and combination of memory operations; speculative loads; speculative
+branch prediction and various types of caching. Memory barriers are used to
+override or suppress these tricks, allowing the code to sanely control the
+interaction of multiple CPUs and/or devices.
VARIETIES OF MEMORY BARRIER
@@ -461,8 +466,8 @@ Whilst this may seem like a failure of c
isn't, and this behaviour can be observed on certain real CPUs (such as the DEC
Alpha).
-To deal with this, a data dependency barrier must be inserted between the
-address load and the data load:
+To deal with this, a data dependency barrier or better must be inserted
+between the address load and the data load:
CPU 1 CPU 2
=============== ===============
next reply other threads:[~2006-06-12 10:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-12 10:42 David Howells [this message]
2006-06-12 15:58 ` [PATCH] Another couple of alterations to the memory barrier doc Paul E. McKenney
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=10587.1150108931@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox