On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 07:34:32PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/3/15 Oleg Nesterov <o...@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.
Completely agreed. It is not like memory ordering is simple, so we should
keep the rules simple. Atomic primitives that sometimes imply a memory
barrier seems a bit over the top.
The rule is that if an atomic primitive returns non-void, then there is
a full memory barrier before and after. This applies to primitives
returning boolean as well, with atomic_dec_and_test() setting this
precedent from what I can see.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
