linux-stable/tools/memory-model/Documentation/locking.txt

Locking
=======

Locking is well-known and the common use cases are straightforward: Any
CPU holding a given lock sees any changes previously seen or made by any
CPU before it previously released that same lock.  This last sentence
is the only part of this document that most developers will need to read.

However, developers who would like to also access lock-protected shared
variables outside of their corresponding locks should continue reading.


Locking and Prior Accesses
--------------------------

The basic rule of locking is worth repeating:

	Any CPU holding a given lock sees any changes previously seen
	or made by any CPU before it previously released that same lock.

Note that this statement is a bit stronger than "Any CPU holding a
given lock sees all changes made by any CPU during the time that CPU was
previously holding this same lock".  For example, consider the following
pair of code fragments:

	/* See MP+polocks.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
	}

	void CPU1(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		r0 = READ_ONCE(y);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
	}

The basic rule guarantees that if CPU0() acquires mylock before CPU1(),
then both r0 and r1 must be set to the value 1.  This also has the
consequence that if the final value of r0 is equal to 1, then the final
value of r1 must also be equal to 1.  In contrast, the weaker rule would
say nothing about the final value of r1.


Locking and Subsequent Accesses
-------------------------------

The converse to the basic rule also holds:  Any CPU holding a given
lock will not see any changes that will be made by any CPU after it
subsequently acquires this same lock.  This converse statement is
illustrated by the following litmus test:

	/* See MP+porevlocks.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		r0 = READ_ONCE(y);
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
	}

	void CPU1(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
		WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
	}

This converse to the basic rule guarantees that if CPU0() acquires
mylock before CPU1(), then both r0 and r1 must be set to the value 0.
This also has the consequence that if the final value of r1 is equal
to 0, then the final value of r0 must also be equal to 0.  In contrast,
the weaker rule would say nothing about the final value of r0.

These examples show only a single pair of CPUs, but the effects of the
locking basic rule extend across multiple acquisitions of a given lock
across multiple CPUs.


Double-Checked Locking
----------------------

It is well known that more than just a lock is required to make
double-checked locking work correctly,  This litmus test illustrates
one incorrect approach:

	/* See Documentation/litmus-tests/locking/DCL-broken.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		r0 = READ_ONCE(flag);
		if (r0 == 0) {
			spin_lock(&lck);
			r1 = READ_ONCE(flag);
			if (r1 == 0) {
				WRITE_ONCE(data, 1);
				WRITE_ONCE(flag, 1);
			}
			spin_unlock(&lck);
		}
		r2 = READ_ONCE(data);
	}
	/* CPU1() is the exactly the same as CPU0(). */

There are two problems.  First, there is no ordering between the first
READ_ONCE() of "flag" and the READ_ONCE() of "data".  Second, there is
no ordering between the two WRITE_ONCE() calls.  It should therefore be
no surprise that "r2" can be zero, and a quick herd7 run confirms this.

One way to fix this is to use smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release()
as shown in this corrected version:

	/* See Documentation/litmus-tests/locking/DCL-fixed.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		r0 = smp_load_acquire(&flag);
		if (r0 == 0) {
			spin_lock(&lck);
			r1 = READ_ONCE(flag);
			if (r1 == 0) {
				WRITE_ONCE(data, 1);
				smp_store_release(&flag, 1);
			}
			spin_unlock(&lck);
		}
		r2 = READ_ONCE(data);
	}
	/* CPU1() is the exactly the same as CPU0(). */

The smp_load_acquire() guarantees that its load from "flags" will
be ordered before the READ_ONCE() from data, thus solving the first
problem.  The smp_store_release() guarantees that its store will be
ordered after the WRITE_ONCE() to "data", solving the second problem.
The smp_store_release() pairs with the smp_load_acquire(), thus ensuring
that the ordering provided by each actually takes effect.  Again, a
quick herd7 run confirms this.

In short, if you access a lock-protected variable without holding the
corresponding lock, you will need to provide additional ordering, in
this case, via the smp_load_acquire() and the smp_store_release().


Ordering Provided by a Lock to CPUs Not Holding That Lock
---------------------------------------------------------

It is not necessarily the case that accesses ordered by locking will be
seen as ordered by CPUs not holding that lock.  Consider this example:

	/* See Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
		WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
	}

	void CPU1(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		r0 = READ_ONCE(y);
		WRITE_ONCE(z, 1);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
	}

	void CPU2(void)
	{
		WRITE_ONCE(z, 2);
		smp_mb();
		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
	}

Counter-intuitive though it might be, it is quite possible to have
the final value of r0 be 1, the final value of z be 2, and the final
value of r1 be 0.  The reason for this surprising outcome is that CPU2()
never acquired the lock, and thus did not fully benefit from the lock's
ordering properties.

Ordering can be extended to CPUs not holding the lock by careful use
of smp_mb__after_spinlock():

	/* See Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
		WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
	}

	void CPU1(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&mylock);
		smp_mb__after_spinlock();
		r0 = READ_ONCE(y);
		WRITE_ONCE(z, 1);
		spin_unlock(&mylock);
	}

	void CPU2(void)
	{
		WRITE_ONCE(z, 2);
		smp_mb();
		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
	}

This addition of smp_mb__after_spinlock() strengthens the lock
acquisition sufficiently to rule out the counter-intuitive outcome.
In other words, the addition of the smp_mb__after_spinlock() prohibits
the counter-intuitive result where the final value of r0 is 1, the final
value of z is 2, and the final value of r1 is 0.


No Roach-Motel Locking!
-----------------------

This example requires familiarity with the herd7 "filter" clause, so
please read up on that topic in litmus-tests.txt.

It is tempting to allow memory-reference instructions to be pulled
into a critical section, but this cannot be allowed in the general case.
For example, consider a spin loop preceding a lock-based critical section.
Now, herd7 does not model spin loops, but we can emulate one with two
loads, with a "filter" clause to constrain the first to return the
initial value and the second to return the updated value, as shown below:

	/* See Documentation/litmus-tests/locking/RM-fixed.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&lck);
		r2 = atomic_inc_return(&y);
		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
		spin_unlock(&lck);
	}

	void CPU1(void)
	{
		r0 = READ_ONCE(x);
		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
		spin_lock(&lck);
		r2 = atomic_inc_return(&y);
		spin_unlock(&lck);
	}

	filter (1:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=1)
	exists (1:r2=1)

The variable "x" is the control variable for the emulated spin loop.
CPU0() sets it to "1" while holding the lock, and CPU1() emulates the
spin loop by reading it twice, first into "1:r0" (which should get the
initial value "0") and then into "1:r1" (which should get the updated
value "1").

The "filter" clause takes this into account, constraining "1:r0" to
equal "0" and "1:r1" to equal 1.

Then the "exists" clause checks to see if CPU1() acquired its lock first,
which should not happen given the filter clause because CPU0() updates
"x" while holding the lock.  And herd7 confirms this.

But suppose that the compiler was permitted to reorder the spin loop
into CPU1()'s critical section, like this:

	/* See Documentation/litmus-tests/locking/RM-broken.litmus. */
	void CPU0(void)
	{
		int r2;

		spin_lock(&lck);
		r2 = atomic_inc_return(&y);
		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
		spin_unlock(&lck);
	}

	void CPU1(void)
	{
		spin_lock(&lck);
		r0 = READ_ONCE(x);
		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
		r2 = atomic_inc_return(&y);
		spin_unlock(&lck);
	}

	filter (1:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=1)
	exists (1:r2=1)

If "1:r0" is equal to "0", "1:r1" can never equal "1" because CPU0()
cannot update "x" while CPU1() holds the lock.  And herd7 confirms this,
showing zero executions matching the "filter" criteria.

And this is why Linux-kernel lock and unlock primitives must prevent
code from entering critical sections.  It is not sufficient to only
prevent code from leaving them.