Merge branch 'merge' (7a0c58d0) · Commits · e / devices / android_kernel_fairphone_FP4

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

+270 −78

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Contents:
		- Control dependencies.
		- SMP barrier pairing.
		- Examples of memory barrier sequences.
		- Read memory barriers vs load speculation.

		(*) Explicit kernel barriers.

		@@ -248,7 +249,7 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
		we may get either of:

		STORE A = X; Y = LOAD A;
		STORE *A = Y;
		STORE *A = Y = X;


		=========================
		@@ -344,9 +345,12 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:

		(4) General memory barriers.

		A general memory barrier is a combination of both a read memory barrier
		and a write memory barrier. It is a partial ordering over both loads and
		stores.
		A general memory barrier gives a guarantee that all the LOAD and STORE
		operations specified before the barrier will appear to happen before all
		the LOAD and STORE operations specified after the barrier with respect to
		the other components of the system.

		A general memory barrier is a partial ordering over both loads and stores.

		General memory barriers imply both read and write memory barriers, and so
		can substitute for either.
		@@ -546,9 +550,9 @@ write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
		=============== ===============
		a = 1;
		<write barrier>
		b = 2; x = a;
		b = 2; x = b;
		<read barrier>
		y = b;
		y = a;

		Or:

		@@ -563,6 +567,18 @@ Or:
		Basically, the read barrier always has to be there, even though it can be of
		the "weaker" type.

		[!] Note that the stores before the write barrier would normally be expected to
		match the loads after the read barrier or data dependency barrier, and vice
		versa:

		CPU 1 CPU 2
		=============== ===============
		a = 1; }---- --->{ v = c
		b = 2; } \ / { w = d
		<write barrier> \ <read barrier>
		c = 3; } / \ { x = a;
		d = 4; }---- --->{ y = b;


		EXAMPLES OF MEMORY BARRIER SEQUENCES
		------------------------------------
		@@ -600,8 +616,8 @@ STORE B, STORE C } all occuring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
		\| \| +------+
		+-------+ : :
		\|
		\| Sequence in which stores committed to memory system
		\| by CPU 1
		\| Sequence in which stores are committed to the
		\| memory system by CPU 1
		V


		@@ -683,14 +699,12 @@ then the following will occur:
		\| : : \| \|
		\| : : \| CPU 2 \|
		\| +-------+ \| \|
		\ \| X->9 \|------>\| \|
		\ +-------+ \| \|
		----->\| B->2 \| \| \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		Makes sure all effects ---> ddddddddddddddddd \| \|
		prior to the store of C +-------+ \| \|
		are perceptible to \| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		successive loads +-------+ \| \|
		\| \| X->9 \|------>\| \|
		\| +-------+ \| \|
		Makes sure all effects ---> \ ddddddddddddddddd \| \|
		prior to the store of C \ +-------+ \| \|
		are perceptible to ----->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		subsequent loads +-------+ \| \|
		: : +-------+


		@@ -699,75 +713,241 @@ following sequence of events:

		CPU 1 CPU 2
		======================= =======================
		{ A = 0, B = 9 }
		STORE A=1
		STORE B=2
		STORE C=3
		<write barrier>
		STORE D=4
		STORE E=5
		LOAD A
		STORE B=2
		LOAD B
		LOAD C
		LOAD D
		LOAD E
		LOAD A

		Without intervention, CPU 2 may then choose to perceive the events on CPU 1 in
		some effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:

		+-------+ : :
		\| \| +------+
		\| \|------>\| C=3 \| }
		\| \| : +------+ }
		\| \| : \| A=1 \| }
		\| \| : +------+ }
		\| CPU 1 \| : \| B=2 \| }---
		\| \| +------+ } \
		\| \| wwwwwwwwwwwww} \
		\| \| +------+ } \ : : +-------+
		\| \| : \| E=5 \| } \ +-------+ \| \|
		\| \| : +------+ } \ { \| C->3 \|------>\| \|
		\| \|------>\| D=4 \| } \ { +-------+ : \| \|
		\| \| +------+ \ { \| E->5 \| : \| \|
		+-------+ : : \ { +-------+ : \| \|
		Transfer -->{ \| A->1 \| : \| CPU 2 \|
		from CPU 1 { +-------+ : \| \|
		to CPU 2 { \| D->4 \| : \| \|
		{ +-------+ : \| \|
		{ \| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		+-------+ : : : :
		\| \| +------+ +-------+
		\| \|------>\| A=1 \|------ --->\| A->0 \|
		\| \| +------+ \ +-------+
		\| CPU 1 \| wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->\| B->9 \|
		\| \| +------+ \| +-------+
		\| \|------>\| B=2 \|--- \| : :
		\| \| +------+ \ \| : : +-------+
		+-------+ : : \ \| +-------+ \| \|
		---------->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		\| +-------+ \| CPU 2 \|
		\| \| A->0 \|------>\| \|
		\| +-------+ \| \|
		\| : : +-------+
		\ : :
		\ +-------+
		---->\| A->1 \|
		+-------+
		: :


		If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of E and the
		load of A on CPU 2:

		CPU 1 CPU 2
		======================= =======================
		{ A = 0, B = 9 }
		STORE A=1
		<write barrier>
		STORE B=2
		LOAD B
		<read barrier>
		LOAD A

		then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be perceived correctly by CPU
		2:

		+-------+ : : : :
		\| \| +------+ +-------+
		\| \|------>\| A=1 \|------ --->\| A->0 \|
		\| \| +------+ \ +-------+
		\| CPU 1 \| wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->\| B->9 \|
		\| \| +------+ \| +-------+
		\| \|------>\| B=2 \|--- \| : :
		\| \| +------+ \ \| : : +-------+
		+-------+ : : \ \| +-------+ \| \|
		---------->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		\| +-------+ \| CPU 2 \|
		\| : : \| \|
		\| : : \| \|
		At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr \| \|
		barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ \| \|
		prior to the storage of B ---->\| A->1 \|------>\| \|
		to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ \| \|
		: : +-------+


		If, however, a read barrier were to be placed between the load of C and the
		load of D on CPU 2, then the partial ordering imposed by CPU 1 will be
		perceived correctly by CPU 2.
		To illustrate this more completely, consider what could happen if the code
		contained a load of A either side of the read barrier:

		+-------+ : :
		\| \| +------+
		\| \|------>\| C=3 \| }
		\| \| : +------+ }
		\| \| : \| A=1 \| }---
		\| \| : +------+ } \
		\| CPU 1 \| : \| B=2 \| } \
		\| \| +------+ \
		\| \| wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \
		\| \| +------+ \ : : +-------+
		\| \| : \| E=5 \| } \ +-------+ \| \|
		\| \| : +------+ }--- \ { \| C->3 \|------>\| \|
		\| \|------>\| D=4 \| } \ \ { +-------+ : \| \|
		\| \| +------+ \ -->{ \| B->2 \| : \| \|
		+-------+ : : \ { +-------+ : \| \|
		\ { \| A->1 \| : \| CPU 2 \|
		\ +-------+ \| \|
		CPU 1 CPU 2
		======================= =======================
		{ A = 0, B = 9 }
		STORE A=1
		<write barrier>
		STORE B=2
		LOAD B
		LOAD A [first load of A]
		<read barrier>
		LOAD A [second load of A]

		Even though the two loads of A both occur after the load of B, they may both
		come up with different values:

		+-------+ : : : :
		\| \| +------+ +-------+
		\| \|------>\| A=1 \|------ --->\| A->0 \|
		\| \| +------+ \ +-------+
		\| CPU 1 \| wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->\| B->9 \|
		\| \| +------+ \| +-------+
		\| \|------>\| B=2 \|--- \| : :
		\| \| +------+ \ \| : : +-------+
		+-------+ : : \ \| +-------+ \| \|
		---------->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		\| +-------+ \| CPU 2 \|
		\| : : \| \|
		\| : : \| \|
		\| +-------+ \| \|
		\| \| A->0 \|------>\| 1st \|
		\| +-------+ \| \|
		At this point the read ----> \ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr \| \|
		barrier causes all effects \ +-------+ \| \|
		prior to the storage of C \ { \| E->5 \| : \| \|
		to be perceptible to CPU 2 -->{ +-------+ : \| \|
		{ \| D->4 \|------>\| \|
		prior to the storage of B ---->\| A->1 \|------>\| 2nd \|
		to be perceptible to CPU 2 +-------+ \| \|
		: : +-------+


		But it may be that the update to A from CPU 1 becomes perceptible to CPU 2
		before the read barrier completes anyway:

		+-------+ : : : :
		\| \| +------+ +-------+
		\| \|------>\| A=1 \|------ --->\| A->0 \|
		\| \| +------+ \ +-------+
		\| CPU 1 \| wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \ --->\| B->9 \|
		\| \| +------+ \| +-------+
		\| \|------>\| B=2 \|--- \| : :
		\| \| +------+ \ \| : : +-------+
		+-------+ : : \ \| +-------+ \| \|
		---------->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		\| +-------+ \| CPU 2 \|
		\| : : \| \|
		\ : : \| \|
		\ +-------+ \| \|
		---->\| A->1 \|------>\| 1st \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr \| \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		\| A->1 \|------>\| 2nd \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		: : +-------+


		The guarantee is that the second load will always come up with A == 1 if the
		load of B came up with B == 2. No such guarantee exists for the first load of
		A; that may come up with either A == 0 or A == 1.


		READ MEMORY BARRIERS VS LOAD SPECULATION
		----------------------------------------

		Many CPUs speculate with loads: that is they see that they will need to load an
		item from memory, and they find a time where they're not using the bus for any
		other loads, and so do the load in advance - even though they haven't actually
		got to that point in the instruction execution flow yet. This permits the
		actual load instruction to potentially complete immediately because the CPU
		already has the value to hand.

		It may turn out that the CPU didn't actually need the value - perhaps because a
		branch circumvented the load - in which case it can discard the value or just
		cache it for later use.

		Consider:

		CPU 1 CPU 2
		======================= =======================
		LOAD B
		DIVIDE } Divide instructions generally
		DIVIDE } take a long time to perform
		LOAD A

		Which might appear as this:

		: : +-------+
		+-------+ \| \|
		--->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		+-------+ \| CPU 2 \|
		: :DIVIDE \| \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->\| A->0 \|~~~~ \| \|
		division speculates on the +-------+ ~ \| \|
		LOAD of A : : ~ \| \|
		: :DIVIDE \| \|
		: : ~ \| \|
		Once the divisions are complete --> : : ~-->\| \|
		the CPU can then perform the : : \| \|
		LOAD with immediate effect : : +-------+


		Placing a read barrier or a data dependency barrier just before the second
		load:

		CPU 1 CPU 2
		======================= =======================
		LOAD B
		DIVIDE
		DIVIDE
		<read barrier>
		LOAD A

		will force any value speculatively obtained to be reconsidered to an extent
		dependent on the type of barrier used. If there was no change made to the
		speculated memory location, then the speculated value will just be used:

		: : +-------+
		+-------+ \| \|
		--->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		+-------+ \| CPU 2 \|
		: :DIVIDE \| \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->\| A->0 \|~~~~ \| \|
		division speculates on the +-------+ ~ \| \|
		LOAD of A : : ~ \| \|
		: :DIVIDE \| \|
		: : ~ \| \|
		: : ~ \| \|
		rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~ \| \|
		: : ~ \| \|
		: : ~-->\| \|
		: : \| \|
		: : +-------+


		but if there was an update or an invalidation from another CPU pending, then
		the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded:

		: : +-------+
		+-------+ \| \|
		--->\| B->2 \|------>\| \|
		+-------+ \| CPU 2 \|
		: :DIVIDE \| \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		The CPU being busy doing a ---> --->\| A->0 \|~~~~ \| \|
		division speculates on the +-------+ ~ \| \|
		LOAD of A : : ~ \| \|
		: :DIVIDE \| \|
		: : ~ \| \|
		: : ~ \| \|
		rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr \| \|
		+-------+ \| \|
		The speculation is discarded ---> --->\| A->1 \|------>\| \|
		and an updated value is +-------+ \| \|
		retrieved : : +-------+


		========================
		EXPLICIT KERNEL BARRIERS
		========================
		@@ -901,7 +1081,7 @@ IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
		===============================

		Some of the other functions in the linux kernel imply memory barriers, amongst
		which are locking, scheduling and memory allocation functions.
		which are locking and scheduling functions.

		This specification is a _minimum_ guarantee; any particular architecture may
		provide more substantial guarantees, but these may not be relied upon outside
		@@ -966,6 +1146,20 @@ equivalent to a full barrier, but a LOCK followed by an UNLOCK is not.
		barriers is that the effects instructions outside of a critical section may
		seep into the inside of the critical section.

		A LOCK followed by an UNLOCK may not be assumed to be full memory barrier
		because it is possible for an access preceding the LOCK to happen after the
		LOCK, and an access following the UNLOCK to happen before the UNLOCK, and the
		two accesses can themselves then cross:

		*A = a;
		LOCK
		UNLOCK
		*B = b;

		may occur as:

		LOCK, STORE B, STORE A, UNLOCK

		Locks and semaphores may not provide any guarantee of ordering on UP compiled
		systems, and so cannot be counted on in such a situation to actually achieve
		anything at all - especially with respect to I/O accesses - unless combined
		@@ -1016,8 +1210,6 @@ Other functions that imply barriers:

		(*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.

		(*) Memory allocation and release functions imply full memory barriers.


		=================================
		INTER-CPU LOCKING BARRIER EFFECTS

Documentation/serial/driver

+5 −4

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -214,12 +214,13 @@ hardware.
		The interaction of the iflag bits is as follows (parity error
		given as an example):
		Parity error INPCK IGNPAR
		None n/a n/a character received
		Yes n/a 0 character discarded
		Yes 0 1 character received, marked as
		n/a 0 n/a character received, marked as
		TTY_NORMAL
		Yes 1 1 character received, marked as
		None 1 n/a character received, marked as
		TTY_NORMAL
		Yes 1 0 character received, marked as
		TTY_PARITY
		Yes 1 1 character discarded

		Other flags may be used (eg, xon/xoff characters) if your
		hardware supports hardware "soft" flow control.

MAINTAINERS

+17 −0

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -568,6 +568,18 @@ L: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
		W: http://www.penguinppc.org/ppc64/
		S: Supported

		BROADCOM BNX2 GIGABIT ETHERNET DRIVER
		P: Michael Chan
		M: mchan@broadcom.com
		L: netdev@vger.kernel.org
		S: Supported

		BROADCOM TG3 GIGABIT ETHERNET DRIVER
		P: Michael Chan
		M: mchan@broadcom.com
		L: netdev@vger.kernel.org
		S: Supported

		BTTV VIDEO4LINUX DRIVER
		P: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
		M: mchehab@infradead.org
		@@ -1877,6 +1889,11 @@ L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
		W: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/kernel-patches.html
		S: Maintained

		MULTIMEDIA CARD SUBSYSTEM
		P: Russell King
		M: rmk+mmc@arm.linux.org.uk
		S: Maintained

		MULTISOUND SOUND DRIVER
		P: Andrew Veliath
		M: andrewtv@usa.net

Makefile

+2 −2

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		VERSION = 2
		PATCHLEVEL = 6
		SUBLEVEL = 17
		EXTRAVERSION =-rc5
		NAME=Lordi Rules
		EXTRAVERSION =-rc6
		NAME=Crazed Snow-Weasel

		# DOCUMENTATION
		# To see a list of typical targets execute "make help"

arch/alpha/kernel/alpha_ksyms.c

+0 −1

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -182,7 +182,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_num_cpus);
		EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_call_function);
		EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_call_function_on_cpu);
		EXPORT_SYMBOL(_atomic_dec_and_lock);
		EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_present_mask);
		#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */

		/*