blob: 5550bfdcce5f1cfaab57728f4c272e9e84902860 [file] [log] [blame]
Peter Zijlstra706eeb32017-06-12 14:50:27 +02001
2On atomic bitops.
3
4
5While our bitmap_{}() functions are non-atomic, we have a number of operations
6operating on single bits in a bitmap that are atomic.
7
8
9API
10---
11
12The single bit operations are:
13
14Non-RMW ops:
15
16 test_bit()
17
18RMW atomic operations without return value:
19
20 {set,clear,change}_bit()
21 clear_bit_unlock()
22
23RMW atomic operations with return value:
24
25 test_and_{set,clear,change}_bit()
26 test_and_set_bit_lock()
27
28Barriers:
29
30 smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
31
32
33All RMW atomic operations have a '__' prefixed variant which is non-atomic.
34
35
36SEMANTICS
37---------
38
39Non-atomic ops:
40
41In particular __clear_bit_unlock() suffers the same issue as atomic_set(),
42which is why the generic version maps to clear_bit_unlock(), see atomic_t.txt.
43
44
45RMW ops:
46
47The test_and_{}_bit() operations return the original value of the bit.
48
49
50ORDERING
51--------
52
53Like with atomic_t, the rule of thumb is:
54
55 - non-RMW operations are unordered;
56
57 - RMW operations that have no return value are unordered;
58
59 - RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered.
60
61Except for test_and_set_bit_lock() which has ACQUIRE semantics and
62clear_bit_unlock() which has RELEASE semantics.
63
64Since a platform only has a single means of achieving atomic operations
65the same barriers as for atomic_t are used, see atomic_t.txt.
66