Commit 706eeb3e authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar

Documentation/locking/atomic: Add documents for new atomic_t APIs

Since we've vastly expanded the atomic_t interface in recent years the
existing documentation is woefully out of date and people seem to get
confused a bit.

Start a new document to hopefully better explain the current state of
affairs.

The old atomic_ops.txt also covers bitmaps and a few more details so
this is not a full replacement and we'll therefore keep that document
around until such a time that we've managed to write more text to cover
its entire.

Also please, ReST people, go away.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 450f9689
On atomic bitops.
While our bitmap_{}() functions are non-atomic, we have a number of operations
operating on single bits in a bitmap that are atomic.
API
---
The single bit operations are:
Non-RMW ops:
test_bit()
RMW atomic operations without return value:
{set,clear,change}_bit()
clear_bit_unlock()
RMW atomic operations with return value:
test_and_{set,clear,change}_bit()
test_and_set_bit_lock()
Barriers:
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
All RMW atomic operations have a '__' prefixed variant which is non-atomic.
SEMANTICS
---------
Non-atomic ops:
In particular __clear_bit_unlock() suffers the same issue as atomic_set(),
which is why the generic version maps to clear_bit_unlock(), see atomic_t.txt.
RMW ops:
The test_and_{}_bit() operations return the original value of the bit.
ORDERING
--------
Like with atomic_t, the rule of thumb is:
- non-RMW operations are unordered;
- RMW operations that have no return value are unordered;
- RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered.
Except for test_and_set_bit_lock() which has ACQUIRE semantics and
clear_bit_unlock() which has RELEASE semantics.
Since a platform only has a single means of achieving atomic operations
the same barriers as for atomic_t are used, see atomic_t.txt.
On atomic types (atomic_t atomic64_t and atomic_long_t).
The atomic type provides an interface to the architecture's means of atomic
RMW operations between CPUs (atomic operations on MMIO are not supported and
can lead to fatal traps on some platforms).
API
---
The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
brevity):
Non-RMW ops:
atomic_read(), atomic_set()
atomic_read_acquire(), atomic_set_release()
RMW atomic operations:
Arithmetic:
atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}()
atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}_return{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
atomic_fetch_{add,sub,inc,dec}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
Bitwise:
atomic_{and,or,xor,andnot}()
atomic_fetch_{and,or,xor,andnot}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
Swap:
atomic_xchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
atomic_cmpxchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
atomic_try_cmpxchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
Reference count (but please see refcount_t):
atomic_add_unless(), atomic_inc_not_zero()
atomic_sub_and_test(), atomic_dec_and_test()
Misc:
atomic_inc_and_test(), atomic_add_negative()
atomic_dec_unless_positive(), atomic_inc_unless_negative()
Barriers:
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
SEMANTICS
---------
Non-RMW ops:
The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically
implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
smp_store_release() respectively.
The one detail to this is that atomic_set{}() should be observable to the RMW
ops. That is:
C atomic-set
{
atomic_set(v, 1);
}
P1(atomic_t *v)
{
atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0);
}
P2(atomic_t *v)
{
atomic_set(v, 0);
}
exists
(v=2)
In this case we would expect the atomic_set() from CPU1 to either happen
before the atomic_add_unless(), in which case that latter one would no-op, or
_after_ in which case we'd overwrite its result. In no case is "2" a valid
outcome.
This is typically true on 'normal' platforms, where a regular competing STORE
will invalidate a LL/SC or fail a CMPXCHG.
The obvious case where this is not so is when we need to implement atomic ops
with a lock:
CPU0 CPU1
atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0);
lock();
ret = READ_ONCE(v->counter); // == 1
atomic_set(v, 0);
if (ret != u) WRITE_ONCE(v->counter, 0);
WRITE_ONCE(v->counter, ret + 1);
unlock();
the typical solution is to then implement atomic_set{}() with atomic_xchg().
RMW ops:
These come in various forms:
- plain operations without return value: atomic_{}()
- operations which return the modified value: atomic_{}_return()
these are limited to the arithmetic operations because those are
reversible. Bitops are irreversible and therefore the modified value
is of dubious utility.
- operations which return the original value: atomic_fetch_{}()
- swap operations: xchg(), cmpxchg() and try_cmpxchg()
- misc; the special purpose operations that are commonly used and would,
given the interface, normally be implemented using (try_)cmpxchg loops but
are time critical and can, (typically) on LL/SC architectures, be more
efficiently implemented.
All these operations are SMP atomic; that is, the operations (for a single
atomic variable) can be fully ordered and no intermediate state is lost or
visible.
ORDERING (go read memory-barriers.txt first)
--------
The rule of thumb:
- non-RMW operations are unordered;
- RMW operations that have no return value are unordered;
- RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered;
- RMW operations that are conditional are unordered on FAILURE,
otherwise the above rules apply.
Except of course when an operation has an explicit ordering like:
{}_relaxed: unordered
{}_acquire: the R of the RMW (or atomic_read) is an ACQUIRE
{}_release: the W of the RMW (or atomic_set) is a RELEASE
Where 'unordered' is against other memory locations. Address dependencies are
not defeated.
Fully ordered primitives are ordered against everything prior and everything
subsequent. Therefore a fully ordered primitive is like having an smp_mb()
before and an smp_mb() after the primitive.
The barriers:
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
only apply to the RMW ops and can be used to augment/upgrade the ordering
inherent to the used atomic op. These barriers provide a full smp_mb().
These helper barriers exist because architectures have varying implicit
ordering on their SMP atomic primitives. For example our TSO architectures
provide full ordered atomics and these barriers are no-ops.
Thus:
atomic_fetch_add();
is equivalent to:
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_fetch_add_relaxed();
smp_mb__after_atomic();
However the atomic_fetch_add() might be implemented more efficiently.
Further, while something like:
smp_mb__before_atomic();
atomic_dec(&X);
is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than
a RELEASE. Similarly for something like:
......@@ -498,11 +498,11 @@ And a couple of implicit varieties:
This means that ACQUIRE acts as a minimal "acquire" operation and
RELEASE acts as a minimal "release" operation.
A subset of the atomic operations described in core-api/atomic_ops.rst have
ACQUIRE and RELEASE variants in addition to fully-ordered and relaxed (no
barrier semantics) definitions. For compound atomics performing both a load
and a store, ACQUIRE semantics apply only to the load and RELEASE semantics
apply only to the store portion of the operation.
A subset of the atomic operations described in atomic_t.txt have ACQUIRE and
RELEASE variants in addition to fully-ordered and relaxed (no barrier
semantics) definitions. For compound atomics performing both a load and a
store, ACQUIRE semantics apply only to the load and RELEASE semantics apply
only to the store portion of the operation.
Memory barriers are only required where there's a possibility of interaction
between two CPUs or between a CPU and a device. If it can be guaranteed that
......@@ -1876,8 +1876,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set
*before* the reference counter is decremented.
See Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst for more information. See the
"Atomic operations" subsection for information on where to use these.
See Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt for more information.
(*) lockless_dereference();
......@@ -2503,88 +2502,7 @@ operations are noted specially as some of them imply full memory barriers and
some don't, but they're very heavily relied on as a group throughout the
kernel.
Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and returns information
about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional general memory barrier
(smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation (with the exception of
explicit lock operations, described later). These include:
xchg();
atomic_xchg(); atomic_long_xchg();
atomic_inc_return(); atomic_long_inc_return();
atomic_dec_return(); atomic_long_dec_return();
atomic_add_return(); atomic_long_add_return();
atomic_sub_return(); atomic_long_sub_return();
atomic_inc_and_test(); atomic_long_inc_and_test();
atomic_dec_and_test(); atomic_long_dec_and_test();
atomic_sub_and_test(); atomic_long_sub_and_test();
atomic_add_negative(); atomic_long_add_negative();
test_and_set_bit();
test_and_clear_bit();
test_and_change_bit();
/* when succeeds */
cmpxchg();
atomic_cmpxchg(); atomic_long_cmpxchg();
atomic_add_unless(); atomic_long_add_unless();
These are used for such things as implementing ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class
operations and adjusting reference counters towards object destruction, and as
such the implicit memory barrier effects are necessary.
The following operations are potential problems as they do _not_ imply memory
barriers, but might be used for implementing such things as RELEASE-class
operations:
atomic_set();
set_bit();
clear_bit();
change_bit();
With these the appropriate explicit memory barrier should be used if necessary
(smp_mb__before_atomic() for instance).
The following also do _not_ imply memory barriers, and so may require explicit
memory barriers under some circumstances (smp_mb__before_atomic() for
instance):
atomic_add();
atomic_sub();
atomic_inc();
atomic_dec();
If they're used for statistics generation, then they probably don't need memory
barriers, unless there's a coupling between statistical data.
If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime,
they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count
will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold
sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary.
If they're used for constructing a lock of some description, then they probably
do need memory barriers as a lock primitive generally has to do things in a
specific order.
Basically, each usage case has to be carefully considered as to whether memory
barriers are needed or not.
The following operations are special locking primitives:
test_and_set_bit_lock();
clear_bit_unlock();
__clear_bit_unlock();
These implement ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class operations. These should be
used in preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives,
because their implementations can be optimised on many architectures.
[!] Note that special memory barrier primitives are available for these
situations because on some CPUs the atomic instructions used imply full memory
barriers, and so barrier instructions are superfluous in conjunction with them,
and in such cases the special barrier primitives will be no-ops.
See Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst for more information.
See Documentation/atomic_t.txt for more information.
ACCESSING DEVICES
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment