OSCL-LXR linux-6.0.1/​tools/​memory-model/​Documentation/​simple.txt	Source navigation Diff markup Identifier search General search
	Version: linux-6.0.1 spark-3.0.0 hadoop-3.2.0-src hadoop-3.3.0-src spark-2.4.7 linux-4.15.13 hadoop-2.7.4-src Revert   Change

 This document provides options for those wishing to keep their
 memory-ordering lives simple, as is necessary for those whose domain
 is complex.  After all, there are bugs other than memory-ordering bugs,
 and the time spent gaining memory-ordering knowledge is not available
 for gaining domain knowledge.  Furthermore Linux-kernel memory model
 (LKMM) is quite complex, with subtle differences in code often having
 dramatic effects on correctness.
 
 The options near the beginning of this list are quite simple.  The idea
 is not that kernel hackers don't already know about them, but rather
 that they might need the occasional reminder.
 
 Please note that this is a generic guide, and that specific subsystems
 will often have special requirements or idioms.  For example, developers
 of MMIO-based device drivers will often need to use mb(), rmb(), and
 wmb(), and therefore might find smp_mb(), smp_rmb(), and smp_wmb()
 to be more natural than smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release().
 On the other hand, those coming in from other environments will likely
 be more familiar with these last two.
 
 
 Single-threaded code
 ====================
 
 In single-threaded code, there is no reordering, at least assuming
 that your toolchain and hardware are working correctly.  In addition,
 it is generally a mistake to assume your code will only run in a single
 threaded context as the kernel can enter the same code path on multiple
 CPUs at the same time.  One important exception is a function that makes
 no external data references.
 
 In the general case, you will need to take explicit steps to ensure that
 your code really is executed within a single thread that does not access
 shared variables.  A simple way to achieve this is to define a global lock
 that you acquire at the beginning of your code and release at the end,
 taking care to ensure that all references to your code's shared data are
 also carried out under that same lock.  Because only one thread can hold
 this lock at a given time, your code will be executed single-threaded.
 This approach is called "code locking".
 
 Code locking can severely limit both performance and scalability, so it
 should be used with caution, and only on code paths that execute rarely.
 After all, a huge amount of effort was required to remove the Linux
 kernel's old "Big Kernel Lock", so let's please be very careful about
 adding new "little kernel locks".
 
 One of the advantages of locking is that, in happy contrast with the
 year 1981, almost all kernel developers are very familiar with locking.
 The Linux kernel's lockdep (CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y) is very helpful with
 the formerly feared deadlock scenarios.
 
 Please use the standard locking primitives provided by the kernel rather
 than rolling your own.  For one thing, the standard primitives interact
 properly with lockdep.  For another thing, these primitives have been
 tuned to deal better with high contention.  And for one final thing, it is
 surprisingly hard to correctly code production-quality lock acquisition
 and release functions.  After all, even simple non-production-quality
 locking functions must carefully prevent both the CPU and the compiler
 from moving code in either direction across the locking function.
 
 Despite the scalability limitations of single-threaded code, RCU
 takes this approach for much of its grace-period processing and also
 for early-boot operation.  The reason RCU is able to scale despite
 single-threaded grace-period processing is use of batching, where all
 updates that accumulated during one grace period are handled by the
 next one.  In other words, slowing down grace-period processing makes
 it more efficient.  Nor is RCU unique:  Similar batching optimizations
 are used in many I/O operations.
 
 
 Packaged code
 =============
 
 Even if performance and scalability concerns prevent your code from
 being completely single-threaded, it is often possible to use library
 functions that handle the concurrency nearly or entirely on their own.
 This approach delegates any LKMM worries to the library maintainer.
 
 In the kernel, what is the "library"?  Quite a bit.  It includes the
 contents of the lib/ directory, much of the include/linux/ directory along
 with a lot of other heavily used APIs.  But heavily used examples include
 the list macros (for example, include/linux/{,rcu}list.h), workqueues,
 smp_call_function(), and the various hash tables and search trees.
 
 
 Data locking
 ============
 
 With code locking, we use single-threaded code execution to guarantee
 serialized access to the data that the code is accessing.  However,
 we can also achieve this by instead associating the lock with specific
 instances of the data structures.  This creates a "critical section"
 in the code execution that will execute as though it is single threaded.
 By placing all the accesses and modifications to a shared data structure
 inside a critical section, we ensure that the execution context that
 holds the lock has exclusive access to the shared data.
 
 The poster boy for this approach is the hash table, where placing a lock
 in each hash bucket allows operations on different buckets to proceed
 concurrently.  This works because the buckets do not overlap with each
 other, so that an operation on one bucket does not interfere with any
 other bucket.
 
 As the number of buckets increases, data locking scales naturally.
 In particular, if the amount of data increases with the number of CPUs,
 increasing the number of buckets as the number of CPUs increase results
 in a naturally scalable data structure.
 
 
 Per-CPU processing
 ==================
 
 Partitioning processing and data over CPUs allows each CPU to take
 a single-threaded approach while providing excellent performance and
 scalability.  Of course, there is no free lunch:  The dark side of this
 excellence is substantially increased memory footprint.
 
 In addition, it is sometimes necessary to occasionally update some global
 view of this processing and data, in which case something like locking
 must be used to protect this global view.  This is the approach taken
 by the percpu_counter infrastructure. In many cases, there are already
 generic/library variants of commonly used per-cpu constructs available.
 Please use them rather than rolling your own.
 
 RCU uses DEFINE_PER_CPU*() declaration to create a number of per-CPU
 data sets.  For example, each CPU does private quiescent-state processing
 within its instance of the per-CPU rcu_data structure, and then uses data
 locking to report quiescent states up the grace-period combining tree.
 
 
 Packaged primitives: Sequence locking
 =====================================
 
 Lockless programming is considered by many to be more difficult than
 lock-based programming, but there are a few lockless design patterns that
 have been built out into an API.  One of these APIs is sequence locking.
 Although this APIs can be used in extremely complex ways, there are simple
 and effective ways of using it that avoid the need to pay attention to
 memory ordering.
 
 The basic keep-things-simple rule for sequence locking is "do not write
 in read-side code".  Yes, you can do writes from within sequence-locking
 readers, but it won't be so simple.  For example, such writes will be
 lockless and should be idempotent.
 
 For more sophisticated use cases, LKMM can guide you, including use
 cases involving combining sequence locking with other synchronization
 primitives.  (LKMM does not yet know about sequence locking, so it is
 currently necessary to open-code it in your litmus tests.)
 
 Additional information may be found in include/linux/seqlock.h.
 
 Packaged primitives: RCU
 ========================
 
 Another lockless design pattern that has been baked into an API
 is RCU.  The Linux kernel makes sophisticated use of RCU, but the
 keep-things-simple rules for RCU are "do not write in read-side code"
 and "do not update anything that is visible to and accessed by readers",
 and "protect updates with locking".
 
 These rules are illustrated by the functions foo_update_a() and
 foo_get_a() shown in Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst.  Additional
 RCU usage patterns maybe found in Documentation/RCU and in the
 source code.
 
 
 Packaged primitives: Atomic operations
 ======================================
 
 Back in the day, the Linux kernel had three types of atomic operations:
 
 1.      Initialization and read-out, such as atomic_set() and atomic_read().
 
 2.      Operations that did not return a value and provided no ordering,
         such as atomic_inc() and atomic_dec().
 
 3.      Operations that returned a value and provided full ordering, such as
         atomic_add_return() and atomic_dec_and_test().  Note that some
         value-returning operations provide full ordering only conditionally.
         For example, cmpxchg() provides ordering only upon success.
 
 More recent kernels have operations that return a value but do not
 provide full ordering.  These are flagged with either a _relaxed()
 suffix (providing no ordering), or an _acquire() or _release() suffix
 (providing limited ordering).
 
 Additional information may be found in these files:
 
 Documentation/atomic_t.txt
 Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt
 Documentation/core-api/refcount-vs-atomic.rst
 
 Reading code using these primitives is often also quite helpful.
 
 
 Lockless, fully ordered
 =======================
 
 When using locking, there often comes a time when it is necessary
 to access some variable or another without holding the data lock
 that serializes access to that variable.
 
 If you want to keep things simple, use the initialization and read-out
 operations from the previous section only when there are no racing
 accesses.  Otherwise, use only fully ordered operations when accessing
 or modifying the variable.  This approach guarantees that code prior
 to a given access to that variable will be seen by all CPUs has having
 happened before any code following any later access to that same variable.
 
 Please note that per-CPU functions are not atomic operations and
 hence they do not provide any ordering guarantees at all.
 
 If the lockless accesses are frequently executed reads that are used
 only for heuristics, or if they are frequently executed writes that
 are used only for statistics, please see the next section.
 
 
 Lockless statistics and heuristics
 ==================================
 
 Unordered primitives such as atomic_read(), atomic_set(), READ_ONCE(), and
 WRITE_ONCE() can safely be used in some cases.  These primitives provide
 no ordering, but they do prevent the compiler from carrying out a number
 of destructive optimizations (for which please see the next section).
 One example use for these primitives is statistics, such as per-CPU
 counters exemplified by the rt_cache_stat structure's routing-cache
 statistics counters.  Another example use case is heuristics, such as
 the jiffies_till_first_fqs and jiffies_till_next_fqs kernel parameters
 controlling how often RCU scans for idle CPUs.
 
 But be careful.  "Unordered" really does mean "unordered".  It is all
 too easy to assume ordering, and this assumption must be avoided when
 using these primitives.
 
 
 Don't let the compiler trip you up
 ==================================
 
 It can be quite tempting to use plain C-language accesses for lockless
 loads from and stores to shared variables.  Although this is both
 possible and quite common in the Linux kernel, it does require a
 surprising amount of analysis, care, and knowledge about the compiler.
 Yes, some decades ago it was not unfair to consider a C compiler to be
 an assembler with added syntax and better portability, but the advent of
 sophisticated optimizing compilers mean that those days are long gone.
 Today's optimizing compilers can profoundly rewrite your code during the
 translation process, and have long been ready, willing, and able to do so.
 
 Therefore, if you really need to use C-language assignments instead of
 READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), and so on, you will need to have a very good
 understanding of both the C standard and your compiler.  Here are some
 introductory references and some tooling to start you on this noble quest:
 
 Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?
         https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/
 Calibrating your fear of big bad optimizing compilers
         https://lwn.net/Articles/799218/
 Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 1)
         https://lwn.net/Articles/816850/
 Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 2)
         https://lwn.net/Articles/816854/
 
 
 More complex use cases
 ======================
 
 If the alternatives above do not do what you need, please look at the
 recipes-pairs.txt file to peel off the next layer of the memory-ordering
 onion.

This page was automatically generated by the 2.1.0 LXR engine. The LXR team