sched/Documentation: Update wake_up() & co. memory-barrier guarantees

Both the implementation and the users' expectation [1] for the various
wakeup primitives have evolved over time, but the documentation has not
kept up with these changes: brings it into 2018.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180424091510.GB4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

Also applied feedback from Alan Stern.
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716180605.16115-12-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.comSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

@@ -2179,32 +2179,41 @@ or:
 	event_indicated = 1;
 	wake_up_process(event_daemon);
 
-A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co.  if and only if they
-wake something up.  The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so
-sits between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
+A general memory barrier is executed by wake_up() if it wakes something up.
+If it doesn't wake anything up then a memory barrier may or may not be
+executed; you must not rely on it.  The barrier occurs before the task state
+is accessed, in particular, it sits between the STORE to indicate the event
+and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
 
-	CPU 1				CPU 2
+	CPU 1 (Sleeper)			CPU 2 (Waker)
 	===============================	===============================
 	set_current_state();		STORE event_indicated
 	  smp_store_mb();		wake_up();
-	    STORE current->state	  <write barrier>
-	    <general barrier>		  STORE current->state
-	LOAD event_indicated
+	    STORE current->state	  ...
+	    <general barrier>		  <general barrier>
+	LOAD event_indicated		  if ((LOAD task->state) & TASK_NORMAL)
+					    STORE task->state
 
-To repeat, this write memory barrier is present if and only if something
-is actually awakened.  To see this, consider the following sequence of
-events, where X and Y are both initially zero:
+where "task" is the thread being woken up and it equals CPU 1's "current".
+
+To repeat, a general memory barrier is guaranteed to be executed by wake_up()
+if something is actually awakened, but otherwise there is no such guarantee.
+To see this, consider the following sequence of events, where X and Y are both
+initially zero:
 
 	CPU 1				CPU 2
 	===============================	===============================
-	X = 1;				STORE event_indicated
+	X = 1;				Y = 1;
 	smp_mb();			wake_up();
-	Y = 1;				wait_event(wq, Y == 1);
-	wake_up();			  load from Y sees 1, no memory barrier
-					load from X might see 0
+	LOAD Y				LOAD X
+
+If a wakeup does occur, one (at least) of the two loads must see 1.  If, on
+the other hand, a wakeup does not occur, both loads might see 0.
 
-In contrast, if a wakeup does occur, CPU 2's load from X would be guaranteed
-to see 1.
+wake_up_process() always executes a general memory barrier.  The barrier again
+occurs before the task state is accessed.  In particular, if the wake_up() in
+the previous snippet were replaced by a call to wake_up_process() then one of
+the two loads would be guaranteed to see 1.
 
 The available waker functions include:
 
@@ -2224,6 +2233,8 @@ The available waker functions include:
 	wake_up_poll();
 	wake_up_process();
 
+In terms of memory ordering, these functions all provide the same guarantees of
+a wake_up() (or stronger).
 
 [!] Note that the memory barriers implied by the sleeper and the waker do _not_
 order multiple stores before the wake-up with respect to loads of those stored

include/linux/sched.h

@@ -167,8 +167,8 @@ struct task_group;
  *   need_sleep = false;
  *   wake_up_state(p, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
  *
- * Where wake_up_state() (and all other wakeup primitives) imply enough
- * barriers to order the store of the variable against wakeup.
+ * where wake_up_state() executes a full memory barrier before accessing the
+ * task state.
  *
  * Wakeup will do: if (@state & p->state) p->state = TASK_RUNNING, that is,
  * once it observes the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE store the waking CPU can issue a

kernel/sched/completion.c

@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@
  *
  * See also complete_all(), wait_for_completion() and related routines.
  *
- * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
- * changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
+ * If this function wakes up a task, it executes a full memory barrier before
+ * accessing the task state.
  */
 void complete(struct completion *x)
 {
@@ -44,8 +44,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete);
  *
  * This will wake up all threads waiting on this particular completion event.
  *
- * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
- * changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
+ * If this function wakes up a task, it executes a full memory barrier before
+ * accessing the task state.
  *
  * Since complete_all() sets the completion of @x permanently to done
  * to allow multiple waiters to finish, a call to reinit_completion()

kernel/sched/core.c

@@ -412,8 +412,8 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task)
 	 * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
 	 * wakeup due to that.
 	 *
-	 * This cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, which pairs with the write
-	 * barrier implied by the wakeup in wake_up_q().
+	 * This cmpxchg() executes a full barrier, which pairs with the full
+	 * barrier executed by the wakeup in wake_up_q().
 	 */
 	if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
 		return;
@@ -441,8 +441,8 @@ void wake_up_q(struct wake_q_head *head)
 		task->wake_q.next = NULL;
 
 		/*
-		 * wake_up_process() implies a wmb() to pair with the queueing
-		 * in wake_q_add() so as not to miss wakeups.
+		 * wake_up_process() executes a full barrier, which pairs with
+		 * the queueing in wake_q_add() so as not to miss wakeups.
 		 */
 		wake_up_process(task);
 		put_task_struct(task);
@@ -1879,8 +1879,7 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
  *     rq(c1)->lock (if not at the same time, then in that order).
  *  C) LOCK of the rq(c1)->lock scheduling in task
  *
- * Transitivity guarantees that B happens after A and C after B.
- * Note: we only require RCpc transitivity.
+ * Release/acquire chaining guarantees that B happens after A and C after B.
  * Note: the CPU doing B need not be c0 or c1
  *
  * Example:
@@ -1942,16 +1941,9 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
  *   UNLOCK rq(0)->lock
  *
  *
- * However; for wakeups there is a second guarantee we must provide, namely we
- * must observe the state that lead to our wakeup. That is, not only must our
- * task observe its own prior state, it must also observe the stores prior to
- * its wakeup.
- *
- * This means that any means of doing remote wakeups must order the CPU doing
- * the wakeup against the CPU the task is going to end up running on. This,
- * however, is already required for the regular Program-Order guarantee above,
- * since the waking CPU is the one issueing the ACQUIRE (smp_cond_load_acquire).
- *
+ * However, for wakeups there is a second guarantee we must provide, namely we
+ * must ensure that CONDITION=1 done by the caller can not be reordered with
+ * accesses to the task state; see try_to_wake_up() and set_current_state().
  */
 
 /**
@@ -1967,6 +1959,9 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
  * Atomic against schedule() which would dequeue a task, also see
  * set_current_state().
  *
+ * This function executes a full memory barrier before accessing the task
+ * state; see set_current_state().
+ *
  * Return: %true if @p->state changes (an actual wakeup was done),
  *	   %false otherwise.
  */
@@ -2141,8 +2136,7 @@ static void try_to_wake_up_local(struct task_struct *p, struct rq_flags *rf)
  *
  * Return: 1 if the process was woken up, 0 if it was already running.
  *
- * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
- * changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
+ * This function executes a full memory barrier before accessing the task state.
  */
 int wake_up_process(struct task_struct *p)
 {

kernel/sched/wait.c

@@ -134,8 +134,8 @@ static void __wake_up_common_lock(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int
  * @nr_exclusive: how many wake-one or wake-many threads to wake up
  * @key: is directly passed to the wakeup function
  *
- * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
- * changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
+ * If this function wakes up a task, it executes a full memory barrier before
+ * accessing the task state.
  */
 void __wake_up(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode,
 			int nr_exclusive, void *key)
@@ -180,8 +180,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_locked_key_bookmark);
  *
  * On UP it can prevent extra preemption.
  *
- * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
- * changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
+ * If this function wakes up a task, it executes a full memory barrier before
+ * accessing the task state.
  */
 void __wake_up_sync_key(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode,
 			int nr_exclusive, void *key)