Memory Ordering in Modern Microprocessors, Part II
Solaris on SPARC uses total-store order (TSO); however, Linux runs SPARC in relaxed-memory order (RMO) mode. The SPARC architecture also offers an intermediate partial-store order (PSO). Any program that runs in RMO also can run in either PSO or TSO. Similarly, a program that runs in PSO also can run in TSO. Moving a shared-memory parallel program in the other direction may require careful insertion of memory barriers; although, as noted earlier, programs that make standard use of synchronization primitives need not worry about memory barriers.
SPARC has a flexible memory-barrier instruction that permits fine-grained control of ordering:
StoreStore: order preceding stores before subsequent stores. This option is used by the Linux smp_wmb() primitive.
LoadStore: order preceding loads before subsequent stores.
StoreLoad: order preceding stores before subsequent loads.
LoadLoad: order preceding loads before subsequent loads. This option is used by the Linux smp_rmb() primitive.
Sync: fully complete all preceding operations before starting any subsequent operations.
MemIssue: complete preceding memory operations before subsequent memory operations, which is important for some instances of memory-mapped I/O.
Lookaside: same as MemIssue but applies only to preceding stores and subsequent loads, and even then only for stores and loads that access the same memory location.
The Linux smp_mb() primitive uses the first four options together, as in:
membar #LoadLoad | #LoadStore | #StoreStore | #StoreLoad
This fully orders memory operations.
So, why is membar #MemIssue needed? Because a membar #StoreLoad could permit a subsequent load to get its value from a write buffer, which would be disastrous if the write goes to an MMIO register that induces side effects on the value to be read. In contrast, membar #MemIssue would wait until the write buffers were flushed before permitting the loads to execute, thereby ensuring that the load actually gets its value from the MMIO register. Drivers instead could use membar #Sync, but the lighter-weight membar #MemIssue is preferred in cases where the additional function of the more-expensive membar #Sync are not required.
The membar #Lookaside is a lighter-weight version of membar #MemIssue, which is useful when writing to a given MMIO register that affects the value read next from that same register. However, the heavier-weight membar #MemIssue must be used when a write to a given MMIO register affects the value read next from some other MMIO register.
It is not clear why SPARC does not define wmb() to be membar #MemIssue and smb_wmb() to be membar #StoreStore, as the current definitions seem vulnerable to bugs in some drivers. It is quite possible that all the SPARC CPUs that Linux runs on implement a more conservative memory-ordering model than the architecture would permit.
SPARC requires a flush instruction be used between the time that an instruction is stored and executed. This is needed to flush any prior value for that location from the SPARC's instruction cache. Notice that flush takes an address and flushes only that address from the instruction cache. On SMP systems, all CPUs' caches are flushed, but there is no convenient way to determine when the off-CPU flushes complete, although there is a reference to an implementation note.
The x86 CPUs provide process ordering so that all CPUs agree on the order of a given CPU's writes to memory, so the smp_wmb() primitive is a no-op for the CPU. However, a compiler directive is required to prevent the compiler from performing optimizations that would result in reordering across the smp_wmb() primitive.
On the other hand, x86 CPUs give no ordering guarantees for loads, so the smp_mb() and smp_rmb() primitives expand to lock;addl. This atomic instruction acts as a barrier to both loads and stores. Some SSE instructions are ordered weakly; for example, clflush and nontemporal move instructions. CPUs that have SSE can use mfence for smp_mb(), lfence for smp_rmb() and sfence for smp_wmb(). A few versions of the x86 CPU have a mode bit that enables out-of-order stores, and for these CPUs, smp_wmb() also must be defined to be lock;addl.
Although many older x86 implementations accommodated self-modifying code without the need for any special instructions, newer revisions of the x86 architecture no longer require x86 CPUs to be so accommodating. Interestingly enough, this relaxation comes just in time to inconvenience JIT implementors.
- Android Browser Security--What You Haven't Been Told
- Epiq Solutions' Sidekiq M.2
- Readers' Choice Awards 2013
- The Many Paths to a Solution
- Nativ Disc
- Download "Linux Management with Red Hat Satellite: Measuring Business Impact and ROI"
- Synopsys' Coverity
- Securing the Programmer
- RPi-Powered pi-topCEED Makes the Case as a Low-Cost Modular Learning Desktop
- Returning Values from Bash Functions
With all the industry talk about the benefits of Linux on Power and all the performance advantages offered by its open architecture, you may be considering a move in that direction. If you are thinking about analytics, big data and cloud computing, you would be right to evaluate Power. The idea of using commodity x86 hardware and replacing it every three years is an outdated cost model. It doesn’t consider the total cost of ownership, and it doesn’t consider the advantage of real processing power, high-availability and multithreading like a demon.
This ebook takes a look at some of the practical applications of the Linux on Power platform and ways you might bring all the performance power of this open architecture to bear for your organization. There are no smoke and mirrors here—just hard, cold, empirical evidence provided by independent sources. I also consider some innovative ways Linux on Power will be used in the future.Get the Guide