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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox