lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: + atomic-improve-atomic_inc_unless_negative-atomic_dec_unless_positive .patch added to -mm tree
From
2013/3/15 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>:
> On 03/15, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>
>> > The lack of the barrier?
>> >
>> > I thought about this, this should be fine? atomic_add_unless() has the same
>> > "problem", but this is documented in atomic_ops.txt:
>> >
>> > atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
>> > unless it fails (returns 0).
>> >
>> > I thought that atomic_add_unless_negative() should have the same
>> > guarantees?
>>
>> I feel very uncomfortable with that. The memory barrier is needed
>> anyway to make sure we don't deal with a stale value of the atomic val
>> (wrt. ordering against another object).
>> The following should really be expected to work without added barrier:
>>
>> void put_object(foo *obj)
>> {
>> if (atomic_dec_return(obj->ref) == -1)
>> free_rcu(obj);
>> }
>>
>> bool try_get_object(foo *obj)
>> {
>> if (atomic_add_unless_negative(obj, 1))
>> return true;
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> = CPU 0 = = CPU 1
>> rcu_read_lock()
>> put_object(obj0);
>> obj = rcu_derefr(obj0);
>> rcu_assign_ptr(obj0, NULL);
>
> (I guess you meant rcu_assign_ptr() then put_object())

Right.

>
>> if (try_get_object(obj))
>> do_something...
>> else
>> object is dying
>> rcu_read_unlock()
>
> I must have missed something.
>
> do_something() looks fine, if atomic_add_unless_negative() succeeds
> we do have a barrier?

Ok, I guess the guarantee of a barrier in case of failure is probably
not needed. But since the only way to safely read the atomic value is
a cmpxchg like operation, I guess a barrier must be involved in any
case.

Using atomic_read() may return some stale value.

>
> Anyway, I understand that it is possible to write the code which
> won't work without the uncoditional mb().

Yeah that's my fear.

>
> My point was: should we fix atomic_add_unless() then? If not, why
> should atomic_add_unless_negative() differ?

They shouldn't differ I guess.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-15 20:23    [W:0.071 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site