/* * Copyright (c) 2011, 2011, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. * * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as * published by the Free Software Foundation. * * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that * accompanied this code). * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. * * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any * questions. */ package jdk.internal.jvmci.code; /** * Constants and intrinsic definition for memory barriers. * * The documentation for each constant is taken from Doug Lea's The JSR-133 Cookbook for Compiler * Writers. *

* The {@code JMM_*} constants capture the memory barriers necessary to implement the Java Memory * Model with respect to volatile field accesses. Their values are explained by this comment from * templateTable_i486.cpp in the HotSpot source code: * *

 * Volatile variables demand their effects be made known to all CPU's in
 * order.  Store buffers on most chips allow reads & writes to reorder; the
 * JMM's ReadAfterWrite.java test fails in -Xint mode without some kind of
 * memory barrier (i.e., it's not sufficient that the interpreter does not
 * reorder volatile references, the hardware also must not reorder them).
 *
 * According to the new Java Memory Model (JMM):
 * (1) All volatiles are serialized wrt to each other.
 * ALSO reads & writes act as acquire & release, so:
 * (2) A read cannot let unrelated NON-volatile memory refs that happen after
 * the read float up to before the read.  It's OK for non-volatile memory refs
 * that happen before the volatile read to float down below it.
 * (3) Similarly, a volatile write cannot let unrelated NON-volatile memory refs
 * that happen BEFORE the write float down to after the write.  It's OK for
 * non-volatile memory refs that happen after the volatile write to float up
 * before it.
 *
 * We only put in barriers around volatile refs (they are expensive), not
 * _between_ memory refs (which would require us to track the flavor of the
 * previous memory refs).  Requirements (2) and (3) require some barriers
 * before volatile stores and after volatile loads.  These nearly cover
 * requirement (1) but miss the volatile-store-volatile-load case.  This final
 * case is placed after volatile-stores although it could just as well go
 * before volatile-loads.
 * 
*/ public class MemoryBarriers { /** * The sequence {@code Load1; LoadLoad; Load2} ensures that {@code Load1}'s data are loaded * before data accessed by {@code Load2} and all subsequent load instructions are loaded. In * general, explicit {@code LoadLoad} barriers are needed on processors that perform speculative * loads and/or out-of-order processing in which waiting load instructions can bypass waiting * stores. On processors that guarantee to always preserve load ordering, these barriers amount * to no-ops. */ public static final int LOAD_LOAD = 0x0001; /** * The sequence {@code Load1; LoadStore; Store2} ensures that {@code Load1}'s data are loaded * before all data associated with {@code Store2} and subsequent store instructions are flushed. * {@code LoadStore} barriers are needed only on those out-of-order processors in which waiting * store instructions can bypass loads. */ public static final int LOAD_STORE = 0x0002; /** * The sequence {@code Store1; StoreLoad; Load2} ensures that {@code Store1}'s data are made * visible to other processors (i.e., flushed to main memory) before data accessed by * {@code Load2} and all subsequent load instructions are loaded. {@code StoreLoad} barriers * protect against a subsequent load incorrectly using {@code Store1}'s data value rather than * that from a more recent store to the same location performed by a different processor. * Because of this, on the processors discussed below, a {@code StoreLoad} is strictly necessary * only for separating stores from subsequent loads of the same location(s) as were stored * before the barrier. {@code StoreLoad} barriers are needed on nearly all recent * multiprocessors, and are usually the most expensive kind. Part of the reason they are * expensive is that they must disable mechanisms that ordinarily bypass cache to satisfy loads * from write-buffers. This might be implemented by letting the buffer fully flush, among other * possible stalls. */ public static final int STORE_LOAD = 0x0004; /** * The sequence {@code Store1; StoreStore; Store2} ensures that {@code Store1}'s data are * visible to other processors (i.e., flushed to memory) before the data associated with * {@code Store2} and all subsequent store instructions. In general, {@code StoreStore} barriers * are needed on processors that do not otherwise guarantee strict ordering of flushes from * write buffers and/or caches to other processors or main memory. */ public static final int STORE_STORE = 0x0008; public static final int JMM_PRE_VOLATILE_WRITE = LOAD_STORE | STORE_STORE; public static final int JMM_POST_VOLATILE_WRITE = STORE_LOAD | STORE_STORE; public static final int JMM_PRE_VOLATILE_READ = 0; public static final int JMM_POST_VOLATILE_READ = LOAD_LOAD | LOAD_STORE; public static String barriersString(int barriers) { StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); sb.append((barriers & LOAD_LOAD) != 0 ? "LOAD_LOAD " : ""); sb.append((barriers & LOAD_STORE) != 0 ? "LOAD_STORE " : ""); sb.append((barriers & STORE_LOAD) != 0 ? "STORE_LOAD " : ""); sb.append((barriers & STORE_STORE) != 0 ? "STORE_STORE " : ""); return sb.toString().trim(); } }