diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/core-api')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 664 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 664 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 724583453e1f..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,664 +0,0 @@ -======================================================= -Semantics and Behavior of Atomic and Bitmask Operations -======================================================= - -:Author: David S. Miller - -This document is intended to serve as a guide to Linux port -maintainers on how to implement atomic counter, bitops, and spinlock -interfaces properly. - -Atomic Type And Operations -========================== - -The atomic_t type should be defined as a signed integer and -the atomic_long_t type as a signed long integer. Also, they should -be made opaque such that any kind of cast to a normal C integer type -will fail. Something like the following should suffice:: - - typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t; - typedef struct { long counter; } atomic_long_t; - -Historically, counter has been declared volatile. This is now discouraged. -See :ref:`Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst -<volatile_considered_harmful>` for the complete rationale. - -local_t is very similar to atomic_t. If the counter is per CPU and only -updated by one CPU, local_t is probably more appropriate. Please see -:ref:`Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst <local_ops>` for the semantics of -local_t. - -The first operations to implement for atomic_t's are the initializers and -plain writes. :: - - #define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) } - #define atomic_set(v, i) ((v)->counter = (i)) - -The first macro is used in definitions, such as:: - - static atomic_t my_counter = ATOMIC_INIT(1); - -The initializer is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations -are guaranteed to be correct reflecting the initialized value if the -initializer is used before runtime. If the initializer is used at runtime, a -proper implicit or explicit read memory barrier is needed before reading the -value with atomic_read from another thread. - -As with all of the ``atomic_`` interfaces, replace the leading ``atomic_`` -with ``atomic_long_`` to operate on atomic_long_t. - -The second interface can be used at runtime, as in:: - - struct foo { atomic_t counter; }; - ... - - struct foo *k; - - k = kmalloc(sizeof(*k), GFP_KERNEL); - if (!k) - return -ENOMEM; - atomic_set(&k->counter, 0); - -The setting is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations by -all threads are guaranteed to be correct reflecting either the value that has -been set with this operation or set with another operation. A proper implicit -or explicit memory barrier is needed before the value set with the operation -is guaranteed to be readable with atomic_read from another thread. - -Next, we have:: - - #define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter) - -which simply reads the counter value currently visible to the calling thread. -The read is atomic in that the return value is guaranteed to be one of the -values initialized or modified with the interface operations if a proper -implicit or explicit memory barrier is used after possible runtime -initialization by any other thread and the value is modified only with the -interface operations. atomic_read does not guarantee that the runtime -initialization by any other thread is visible yet, so the user of the -interface must take care of that with a proper implicit or explicit memory -barrier. - -.. warning:: - - ``atomic_read()`` and ``atomic_set()`` DO NOT IMPLY BARRIERS! - - Some architectures may choose to use the volatile keyword, barriers, or - inline assembly to guarantee some degree of immediacy for atomic_read() - and atomic_set(). This is not uniformly guaranteed, and may change in - the future, so all users of atomic_t should treat atomic_read() and - atomic_set() as simple C statements that may be reordered or optimized - away entirely by the compiler or processor, and explicitly invoke the - appropriate compiler and/or memory barrier for each use case. Failure - to do so will result in code that may suddenly break when used with - different architectures or compiler optimizations, or even changes in - unrelated code which changes how the compiler optimizes the section - accessing atomic_t variables. - -Properly aligned pointers, longs, ints, and chars (and unsigned -equivalents) may be atomically loaded from and stored to in the same -sense as described for atomic_read() and atomic_set(). The READ_ONCE() -and WRITE_ONCE() macros should be used to prevent the compiler from using -optimizations that might otherwise optimize accesses out of existence on -the one hand, or that might create unsolicited accesses on the other. - -For example consider the following code:: - - while (a > 0) - do_something(); - -If the compiler can prove that do_something() does not store to the -variable a, then the compiler is within its rights transforming this to -the following:: - - if (a > 0) - for (;;) - do_something(); - -If you don't want the compiler to do this (and you probably don't), then -you should use something like the following:: - - while (READ_ONCE(a) > 0) - do_something(); - -Alternatively, you could place a barrier() call in the loop. - -For another example, consider the following code:: - - tmp_a = a; - do_something_with(tmp_a); - do_something_else_with(tmp_a); - -If the compiler can prove that do_something_with() does not store to the -variable a, then the compiler is within its rights to manufacture an -additional load as follows:: - - tmp_a = a; - do_something_with(tmp_a); - tmp_a = a; - do_something_else_with(tmp_a); - -This could fatally confuse your code if it expected the same value -to be passed to do_something_with() and do_something_else_with(). - -The compiler would be likely to manufacture this additional load if -do_something_with() was an inline function that made very heavy use -of registers: reloading from variable a could save a flush to the -stack and later reload. To prevent the compiler from attacking your -code in this manner, write the following:: - - tmp_a = READ_ONCE(a); - do_something_with(tmp_a); - do_something_else_with(tmp_a); - -For a final example, consider the following code, assuming that the -variable a is set at boot time before the second CPU is brought online -and never changed later, so that memory barriers are not needed:: - - if (a) - b = 9; - else - b = 42; - -The compiler is within its rights to manufacture an additional store -by transforming the above code into the following:: - - b = 42; - if (a) - b = 9; - -This could come as a fatal surprise to other code running concurrently -that expected b to never have the value 42 if a was zero. To prevent -the compiler from doing this, write something like:: - - if (a) - WRITE_ONCE(b, 9); - else - WRITE_ONCE(b, 42); - -Don't even -think- about doing this without proper use of memory barriers, -locks, or atomic operations if variable a can change at runtime! - -.. warning:: - - ``READ_ONCE()`` OR ``WRITE_ONCE()`` DO NOT IMPLY A BARRIER! - -Now, we move onto the atomic operation interfaces typically implemented with -the help of assembly code. :: - - void atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v); - void atomic_sub(int i, atomic_t *v); - void atomic_inc(atomic_t *v); - void atomic_dec(atomic_t *v); - -These four routines add and subtract integral values to/from the given -atomic_t value. The first two routines pass explicit integers by -which to make the adjustment, whereas the latter two use an implicit -adjustment value of "1". - -One very important aspect of these two routines is that they DO NOT -require any explicit memory barriers. They need only perform the -atomic_t counter update in an SMP safe manner. - -Next, we have:: - - int atomic_inc_return(atomic_t *v); - int atomic_dec_return(atomic_t *v); - -These routines add 1 and subtract 1, respectively, from the given -atomic_t and return the new counter value after the operation is -performed. - -Unlike the above routines, it is required that these primitives -include explicit memory barriers that are performed before and after -the operation. It must be done such that all memory operations before -and after the atomic operation calls are strongly ordered with respect -to the atomic operation itself. - -For example, it should behave as if a smp_mb() call existed both -before and after the atomic operation. - -If the atomic instructions used in an implementation provide explicit -memory barrier semantics which satisfy the above requirements, that is -fine as well. - -Let's move on:: - - int atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v); - int atomic_sub_return(int i, atomic_t *v); - -These behave just like atomic_{inc,dec}_return() except that an -explicit counter adjustment is given instead of the implicit "1". -This means that like atomic_{inc,dec}_return(), the memory barrier -semantics are required. - -Next:: - - int atomic_inc_and_test(atomic_t *v); - int atomic_dec_and_test(atomic_t *v); - -These two routines increment and decrement by 1, respectively, the -given atomic counter. They return a boolean indicating whether the -resulting counter value was zero or not. - -Again, these primitives provide explicit memory barrier semantics around -the atomic operation:: - - int atomic_sub_and_test(int i, atomic_t *v); - -This is identical to atomic_dec_and_test() except that an explicit -decrement is given instead of the implicit "1". This primitive must -provide explicit memory barrier semantics around the operation:: - - int atomic_add_negative(int i, atomic_t *v); - -The given increment is added to the given atomic counter value. A boolean -is return which indicates whether the resulting counter value is negative. -This primitive must provide explicit memory barrier semantics around -the operation. - -Then:: - - int atomic_xchg(atomic_t *v, int new); - -This performs an atomic exchange operation on the atomic variable v, setting -the given new value. It returns the old value that the atomic variable v had -just before the operation. - -atomic_xchg must provide explicit memory barriers around the operation. :: - - int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *v, int old, int new); - -This performs an atomic compare exchange operation on the atomic value v, -with the given old and new values. Like all atomic_xxx operations, -atomic_cmpxchg will only satisfy its atomicity semantics as long as all -other accesses of \*v are performed through atomic_xxx operations. - -atomic_cmpxchg must provide explicit memory barriers around the operation, -although if the comparison fails then no memory ordering guarantees are -required. - -The semantics for atomic_cmpxchg are the same as those defined for 'cas' -below. - -Finally:: - - int atomic_add_unless(atomic_t *v, int a, int u); - -If the atomic value v is not equal to u, this function adds a to v, and -returns non zero. If v is equal to u then it returns zero. This is done as -an atomic operation. - -atomic_add_unless must provide explicit memory barriers around the -operation unless it fails (returns 0). - -atomic_inc_not_zero, equivalent to atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0) - - -If a caller requires memory barrier semantics around an atomic_t -operation which does not return a value, a set of interfaces are -defined which accomplish this:: - - void smp_mb__before_atomic(void); - void smp_mb__after_atomic(void); - -Preceding a non-value-returning read-modify-write atomic operation with -smp_mb__before_atomic() and following it with smp_mb__after_atomic() -provides the same full ordering that is provided by value-returning -read-modify-write atomic operations. - -For example, smp_mb__before_atomic() can be used like so:: - - obj->dead = 1; - smp_mb__before_atomic(); - atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count); - -It makes sure that all memory operations preceding the atomic_dec() -call are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic counter -operation. In the above example, it guarantees that the assignment of -"1" to obj->dead will be globally visible to other cpus before the -atomic counter decrement. - -Without the explicit smp_mb__before_atomic() call, the -implementation could legally allow the atomic counter update visible -to other cpus before the "obj->dead = 1;" assignment. - -A missing memory barrier in the cases where they are required by the -atomic_t implementation above can have disastrous results. Here is -an example, which follows a pattern occurring frequently in the Linux -kernel. It is the use of atomic counters to implement reference -counting, and it works such that once the counter falls to zero it can -be guaranteed that no other entity can be accessing the object:: - - static void obj_list_add(struct obj *obj, struct list_head *head) - { - obj->active = 1; - list_add(&obj->list, head); - } - - static void obj_list_del(struct obj *obj) - { - list_del(&obj->list); - obj->active = 0; - } - - static void obj_destroy(struct obj *obj) - { - BUG_ON(obj->active); - kfree(obj); - } - - struct obj *obj_list_peek(struct list_head *head) - { - if (!list_empty(head)) { - struct obj *obj; - - obj = list_entry(head->next, struct obj, list); - atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt); - return obj; - } - return NULL; - } - - void obj_poke(void) - { - struct obj *obj; - - spin_lock(&global_list_lock); - obj = obj_list_peek(&global_list); - spin_unlock(&global_list_lock); - - if (obj) { - obj->ops->poke(obj); - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt)) - obj_destroy(obj); - } - } - - void obj_timeout(struct obj *obj) - { - spin_lock(&global_list_lock); - obj_list_del(obj); - spin_unlock(&global_list_lock); - - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt)) - obj_destroy(obj); - } - -.. note:: - - This is a simplification of the ARP queue management in the generic - neighbour discover code of the networking. Olaf Kirch found a bug wrt. - memory barriers in kfree_skb() that exposed the atomic_t memory barrier - requirements quite clearly. - -Given the above scheme, it must be the case that the obj->active -update done by the obj list deletion be visible to other processors -before the atomic counter decrement is performed. - -Otherwise, the counter could fall to zero, yet obj->active would still -be set, thus triggering the assertion in obj_destroy(). The error -sequence looks like this:: - - cpu 0 cpu 1 - obj_poke() obj_timeout() - obj = obj_list_peek(); - ... gains ref to obj, refcnt=2 - obj_list_del(obj); - obj->active = 0 ... - ... visibility delayed ... - atomic_dec_and_test() - ... refcnt drops to 1 ... - atomic_dec_and_test() - ... refcount drops to 0 ... - obj_destroy() - BUG() triggers since obj->active - still seen as one - obj->active update visibility occurs - -With the memory barrier semantics required of the atomic_t operations -which return values, the above sequence of memory visibility can never -happen. Specifically, in the above case the atomic_dec_and_test() -counter decrement would not become globally visible until the -obj->active update does. - -As a historical note, 32-bit Sparc used to only allow usage of -24-bits of its atomic_t type. This was because it used 8 bits -as a spinlock for SMP safety. Sparc32 lacked a "compare and swap" -type instruction. However, 32-bit Sparc has since been moved over -to a "hash table of spinlocks" scheme, that allows the full 32-bit -counter to be realized. Essentially, an array of spinlocks are -indexed into based upon the address of the atomic_t being operated -on, and that lock protects the atomic operation. Parisc uses the -same scheme. - -Another note is that the atomic_t operations returning values are -extremely slow on an old 386. - - -Atomic Bitmask -============== - -We will now cover the atomic bitmask operations. You will find that -their SMP and memory barrier semantics are similar in shape and scope -to the atomic_t ops above. - -Native atomic bit operations are defined to operate on objects aligned -to the size of an "unsigned long" C data type, and are least of that -size. The endianness of the bits within each "unsigned long" are the -native endianness of the cpu. :: - - void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - -These routines set, clear, and change, respectively, the bit number -indicated by "nr" on the bit mask pointed to by "ADDR". - -They must execute atomically, yet there are no implicit memory barrier -semantics required of these interfaces. :: - - int test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - int test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - -Like the above, except that these routines return a boolean which -indicates whether the changed bit was set _BEFORE_ the atomic bit -operation. - - -.. warning:: - It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean, ie. "0" or "1". - Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by declaring the - above to return "long" and just returning something like "old_val & - mask" because that will not work. - -For one thing, this return value gets truncated to int in many code -paths using these interfaces, so on 64-bit if the bit is set in the -upper 32-bits then testers will never see that. - -One great example of where this problem crops up are the thread_info -flag operations. Routines such as test_and_set_ti_thread_flag() chop -the return value into an int. There are other places where things -like this occur as well. - -These routines, like the atomic_t counter operations returning values, -must provide explicit memory barrier semantics around their execution. -All memory operations before the atomic bit operation call must be -made visible globally before the atomic bit operation is made visible. -Likewise, the atomic bit operation must be visible globally before any -subsequent memory operation is made visible. For example:: - - obj->dead = 1; - if (test_and_set_bit(0, &obj->flags)) - /* ... */; - obj->killed = 1; - -The implementation of test_and_set_bit() must guarantee that -"obj->dead = 1;" is visible to cpus before the atomic memory operation -done by test_and_set_bit() becomes visible. Likewise, the atomic -memory operation done by test_and_set_bit() must become visible before -"obj->killed = 1;" is visible. - -Finally there is the basic operation:: - - int test_bit(unsigned long nr, __const__ volatile unsigned long *addr); - -Which returns a boolean indicating if bit "nr" is set in the bitmask -pointed to by "addr". - -If explicit memory barriers are required around {set,clear}_bit() (which do -not return a value, and thus does not need to provide memory barrier -semantics), two interfaces are provided:: - - void smp_mb__before_atomic(void); - void smp_mb__after_atomic(void); - -They are used as follows, and are akin to their atomic_t operation -brothers:: - - /* All memory operations before this call will - * be globally visible before the clear_bit(). - */ - smp_mb__before_atomic(); - clear_bit( ... ); - - /* The clear_bit() will be visible before all - * subsequent memory operations. - */ - smp_mb__after_atomic(); - -There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release, -same as spinlocks). These operate in the same way as their non-_lock/unlock -postfixed variants, except that they are to provide acquire/release semantics, -respectively. This means they can be used for bit_spin_trylock and -bit_spin_unlock type operations without specifying any more barriers. :: - - int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr); - void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr); - void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr); - -The __clear_bit_unlock version is non-atomic, however it still implements -unlock barrier semantics. This can be useful if the lock itself is protecting -the other bits in the word. - -Finally, there are non-atomic versions of the bitmask operations -provided. They are used in contexts where some other higher-level SMP -locking scheme is being used to protect the bitmask, and thus less -expensive non-atomic operations may be used in the implementation. -They have names similar to the above bitmask operation interfaces, -except that two underscores are prefixed to the interface name. :: - - void __set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - void __clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - void __change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - int __test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - int __test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - int __test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); - -These non-atomic variants also do not require any special memory -barrier semantics. - -The routines xchg() and cmpxchg() must provide the same exact -memory-barrier semantics as the atomic and bit operations returning -values. - -.. note:: - - If someone wants to use xchg(), cmpxchg() and their variants, - linux/atomic.h should be included rather than asm/cmpxchg.h, unless the - code is in arch/* and can take care of itself. - -Spinlocks and rwlocks have memory barrier expectations as well. -The rule to follow is simple: - -1) When acquiring a lock, the implementation must make it globally - visible before any subsequent memory operation. - -2) When releasing a lock, the implementation must make it such that - all previous memory operations are globally visible before the - lock release. - -Which finally brings us to _atomic_dec_and_lock(). There is an -architecture-neutral version implemented in lib/dec_and_lock.c, -but most platforms will wish to optimize this in assembler. :: - - int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock); - -Atomically decrement the given counter, and if will drop to zero -atomically acquire the given spinlock and perform the decrement -of the counter to zero. If it does not drop to zero, do nothing -with the spinlock. - -It is actually pretty simple to get the memory barrier correct. -Simply satisfy the spinlock grab requirements, which is make -sure the spinlock operation is globally visible before any -subsequent memory operation. - -We can demonstrate this operation more clearly if we define -an abstract atomic operation:: - - long cas(long *mem, long old, long new); - -"cas" stands for "compare and swap". It atomically: - -1) Compares "old" with the value currently at "mem". -2) If they are equal, "new" is written to "mem". -3) Regardless, the current value at "mem" is returned. - -As an example usage, here is what an atomic counter update -might look like:: - - void example_atomic_inc(long *counter) - { - long old, new, ret; - - while (1) { - old = *counter; - new = old + 1; - - ret = cas(counter, old, new); - if (ret == old) - break; - } - } - -Let's use cas() in order to build a pseudo-C atomic_dec_and_lock():: - - int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock) - { - long old, new, ret; - int went_to_zero; - - went_to_zero = 0; - while (1) { - old = atomic_read(atomic); - new = old - 1; - if (new == 0) { - went_to_zero = 1; - spin_lock(lock); - } - ret = cas(atomic, old, new); - if (ret == old) - break; - if (went_to_zero) { - spin_unlock(lock); - went_to_zero = 0; - } - } - - return went_to_zero; - } - -Now, as far as memory barriers go, as long as spin_lock() -strictly orders all subsequent memory operations (including -the cas()) with respect to itself, things will be fine. - -Said another way, _atomic_dec_and_lock() must guarantee that -a counter dropping to zero is never made visible before the -spinlock being acquired. - -.. note:: - - Note that this also means that for the case where the counter is not - dropping to zero, there are no memory ordering requirements. |