From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: 1vier1@web.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH 6/6] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Clarify cmpxchg()
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:49:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191012054958.3624-7-manfred@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191012054958.3624-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
The documentation in memory-barriers.txt claims that
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() are for atomic ops that do not return a
value.
This is misleading and doesn't match the example in atomic_t.txt,
and e.g. smp_mb__before_atomic() may and is used together with
cmpxchg_relaxed() in the wake_q code.
The purpose of e.g. smp_mb__before_atomic() is to "upgrade" a following
RMW atomic operation to a full memory barrier.
The return code of the atomic operation has no impact, so all of the
following examples are valid:
1)
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_add();
2)
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_xchg_relaxed();
3)
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_fetch_add_relaxed();
Invalid would be:
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_set();
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1adbb8a371c7..52076b057400 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1873,12 +1873,13 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
(*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
(*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
- These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
- decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
- reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
+ These are for use with atomic RMW functions (such as add, subtract,
+ increment, decrement, failed conditional operations, ...) that do
+ not imply memory barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier,
+ for example when used for reference counting.
- These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
- value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
+ These are also used for atomic RMW bitop functions that do imply a full
+ memory barrier (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead
and then decrements the object's reference count:
--
2.21.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-12 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-12 5:49 [PATCH 0/6] V2: Clarify/standardize memory barriers for ipc Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 1/6] wake_q: Cleanup + Documentation update Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 6:34 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-14 12:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 2/6] ipc/mqueue.c: Remove duplicated code Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 6:35 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-14 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 3/6] ipc/mqueue.c: Update/document memory barriers Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 6:38 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-14 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-14 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-14 18:06 ` Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 4/6] ipc/msg.c: Update and document " Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 5/6] ipc/sem.c: Document and update " Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2019-10-14 13:03 ` [PATCH 6/6] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Clarify cmpxchg() Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-14 17:49 ` Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 19:03 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-15 7:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-15 20:31 ` Waiman Long
2019-10-15 1:26 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-15 7:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-15 16:26 ` Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191012054958.3624-7-manfred@colorfullife.com \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=1vier1@web.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®