linux

mirror of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ synced 2026-09-24 18:16:04 +00:00

2156 lines

76 KiB

Raw Normal View History

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00




















[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00


























































































































































































Fix typos in /Documentation : 'T'' This patch fixes typos in various Documentation txts. The patch addresses some +words starting with the letter 'T'. Signed-off-by: Matt LaPlante <kernel1@cyberdogtech.com> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> 2006-11-30 04:55:36 +01:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



































[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00











[PATCH] Another couple of alterations to the memory barrier doc Make 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> Acked-By: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:48:49 -07:00


Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Another couple of alterations to the memory barrier doc Make 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> Acked-By: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:48:49 -07:00



[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
















[PATCH] Corrections to memory barrier doc Apply some small corrections to the memory barrier document, as contributed by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:49:22 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00





























































[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00





[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00





























































[PATCH] Corrections to memory barrier doc Apply some small corrections to the memory barrier document, as contributed by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:49:22 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00










PCI: doc/pci: create Documentation/PCI/ and move files into it Create Documentation/PCI/ and move PCI-related files to it. Fix a few instances of trailing whitespace. Update references to the new file locations. Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> 2008-03-10 17:16:32 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
























Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00







[PATCH] Another couple of alterations to the memory barrier doc Make 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> Acked-By: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:48:49 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00




















[PATCH] Corrections to memory barrier doc Apply some small corrections to the memory barrier document, as contributed by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:49:22 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
































































[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00













[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00









[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00












typo fixes: occuring -> occurring Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> 2006-06-30 18:27:16 +02:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00




Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00





Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00


Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



[PATCH] Improve data-dependency memory barrier example in documentation In the memory barrier document, improve the example of the data dependency barrier situation by: (1) showing the initial values of the variables involved; and (2) repeating the instruction sequence description, this time with the data dependency barrier actually shown to make it clear what the revised sequence actually is. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:24 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00





































Documentation: remove duplicated words Remove many duplicated words under Documentation/ and do other small cleanups. Examples: "and and" --> "and" "in in" --> "in" "the the" --> "the" "the the" --> "to the" ... Signed-off-by: Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> 2006-10-03 22:57:56 +02:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

[PATCH] Improve data-dependency memory barrier example in documentation In the memory barrier document, improve the example of the data dependency barrier situation by: (1) showing the initial values of the variables involved; and (2) repeating the instruction sequence description, this time with the data dependency barrier actually shown to make it clear what the revised sequence actually is. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:24 -07:00













[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
















[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00





[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00







[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00


















[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Corrections to memory barrier doc Apply some small corrections to the memory barrier document, as contributed by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:49:22 -07:00
[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00








































































































































































































[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00























Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

















read_barrier_depends arch fixlets read_barrie_depends has always been a noop (not a compiler barrier) on all architectures except SMP alpha. This brings UP alpha and frv into line with all other architectures, and fixes incorrect documentation. Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2008-05-14 06:35:11 +02:00










[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

















[PATCH] A minor fix for set_mb() in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt set_mb() is used by set_current_state() which needs mb(), not wmb(). I think it would be right to assume that set_mb() implies mb(), all arches seem to do just this. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-11-08 17:44:38 -08:00
[PATCH] remove set_wmb - doc update This patch removes the reference to set_wmb from memory-barriers.txt since it shouldn't be used. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-07-14 16:05:01 -04:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00








[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00























































[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



























































Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00


[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
[PATCH] Further alterations for memory barrier document From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Apply some alterations to the memory barrier document that I worked out with Paul McKenney of IBM, plus some of the alterations suggested by Alan Stern. The following changes were made: () One of the examples given for what can happen with overlapping memory barriers was wrong. () The description of general memory barriers said that a general barrier is a combination of a read barrier and a write barrier. This isn't entirely true: it implies both, but is more than a combination of both. () The first example in the "SMP Barrier Pairing" section was wrong: the loads around the read barrier need to touch the memory locations in the opposite order to the stores around the write barrier. () Added a note to make explicit that the loads should be in reverse order to the stores. () Adjusted the diagrams in the "Examples Of Memory Barrier Sequences" section to make them clearer. Added a couple of diagrams to make it more clear as to how it could go wrong without the barrier. () Added a section on memory speculation. () Dropped any references to memory allocation routines doing memory barriers. They may do sometimes, but it can't be relied on. This may be worthy of further documentation later. () Made the fact that a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK should not be considered a full memory barrier more explicit and gave an example. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-10 09:54:12 -07:00













[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00






























































[PATCH] Fix typos in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt Fix some typos in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@gmail.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-05-15 09:44:36 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00










Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00




























Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



















































Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00





























Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00


































Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00






Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
























































[PATCH] Corrections to memory barrier doc Apply some small corrections to the memory barrier document, as contributed by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:49:22 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00




[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00






bitops: introduce lock ops Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock semantics. Convert all architectures to use the generic implementation. Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Acked-By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru> Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com> Cc: Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@analog.com> Cc: Mikael Starvik <starvik@axis.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp> Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> Cc: Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Greg Ungerer <gerg@uclinux.org> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> Cc: Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> Cc: Richard Curnow <rc@rc0.org.uk> Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> Cc: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Cc: Miles Bader <uclinux-v850@lsi.nec.co.jp> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-10-18 03:06:39 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00











documentation: atomic_add_unless() doesn't imply mb() on failure (sorry for being offtpoic, but while experts are here...) A "typical" implementation of atomic_add_unless() can return 0 immediately after the first atomic_read() (before doing cmpxchg). In that case it doesn't provide any barrier semantics. See include/asm-ia64/atomic.h as an example. We should either change the implementation, or fix the docs. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2008-02-24 00:03:29 +03:00
[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00






[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00


[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00


[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00


















[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00

bitops: introduce lock ops Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock semantics. Convert all architectures to use the generic implementation. Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Acked-By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru> Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com> Cc: Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@analog.com> Cc: Mikael Starvik <starvik@axis.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp> Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> Cc: Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Greg Ungerer <gerg@uclinux.org> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> Cc: Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> Cc: Richard Curnow <rc@rc0.org.uk> Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> Cc: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Cc: Miles Bader <uclinux-v850@lsi.nec.co.jp> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-10-18 03:06:39 -07:00









[PATCH] Fix memory barrier docs wrt atomic ops Fix the memory barrier documentation to attempt to describe atomic ops correctly. atomic_t ops that return a value _do_ imply smp_mb() either side, and so don't actually require smp_mb___atomic_() special barriers. Also explains why special barriers exist in addition to normal barriers. Further fix the memory barrier documents to portray bitwise operation memory barrier effects correctly following Nick Piggin's comments. It makes the point that any atomic op that both modifies some state in memory and returns information on that state implies memory barriers on both sides. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-04-10 22:54:23 -07:00



[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
































































































Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00

[PATCH] Corrections to memory barrier doc Apply some small corrections to the memory barrier document, as contributed by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-06-25 05:49:22 -07:00


[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

















Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00























Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00














Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
























































































Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00





































Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00








Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00






Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00






Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00










[PATCH] Fix typos in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt Fix some typos in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@gmail.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-05-15 09:44:36 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00























[PATCH] fix typo in memory barrier docs Fix cut'n'paste typo - &a and &b are used in other examples, in this one the doc uses &u and &v. Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-10-19 23:28:19 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00















Fix some typos in Documentation/: 'A' This patch fixes typos in various Documentation txts. This patch addresses some words starting with the letter 'A'. Signed-off-by: Matt LaPlante <kernel1@cyberdogtech.com> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> 2006-10-03 22:45:33 +02:00
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00













Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00



[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00








Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00














Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00







Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00















Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00

[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00
















































































Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00



Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Fix various grammatical issues in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 2007-05-23 13:58:20 -07:00
[PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #7] The attached patch documents the Linux kernel's memory barriers. I've updated it from the comments I've been given. The per-arch notes sections are gone because it's clear that there are so many exceptions, that it's not worth having them. I've added a list of references to other documents. I've tried to get rid of the concept of memory accesses appearing on the bus; what matters is apparent behaviour with respect to other observers in the system. Interrupts barrier effects are now considered to be non-existent. They may be there, but you may not rely on them. I've added a couple of definition sections at the top of the document: one to specify the minimum execution model that may be assumed, the other to specify what this document refers to by the term "memory". I've made greater mention of the use of mmiowb(). I've adjusted the way in which caches are described, and described the fun that can be had with cache coherence maintenance being unordered and data dependency not being necessarily implicit. I've described (smp_)read_barrier_depends(). I've rearranged the order of the sections, so that memory barriers are discussed in abstract first, and then described the memory barrier facilities available on Linux, before going on to more real-world discussions and examples. I've added information about the lack of memory barriering effects with atomic ops and bitops. I've added information about control dependencies. I've added more diagrams to illustrate caching interactions between CPUs. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 2006-03-31 16:00:29 +01:00

2156 lines 76 KiB Raw Normal View History

2156 lines

76 KiB

Raw Normal View History