blob: 68542fe13b850e9afb473da8ada4220a019d7ee4 [file] [log] [blame]
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07001 Semantics and Behavior of Atomic and
2 Bitmask Operations
3
4 David S. Miller
5
6 This document is intended to serve as a guide to Linux port
7maintainers on how to implement atomic counter, bitops, and spinlock
8interfaces properly.
9
10 The atomic_t type should be defined as a signed integer.
11Also, it should be made opaque such that any kind of cast to a normal
12C integer type will fail. Something like the following should
13suffice:
14
Nikanth Karthikesan72eef0f2011-05-26 16:25:13 -070015 typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -070016
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -070017Historically, counter has been declared volatile. This is now discouraged.
18See Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt for the complete rationale.
19
Grant Grundler1a2142b2007-10-16 23:29:28 -070020local_t is very similar to atomic_t. If the counter is per CPU and only
21updated by one CPU, local_t is probably more appropriate. Please see
22Documentation/local_ops.txt for the semantics of local_t.
23
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -070024The first operations to implement for atomic_t's are the initializers and
25plain reads.
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -070026
27 #define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }
28 #define atomic_set(v, i) ((v)->counter = (i))
29
30The first macro is used in definitions, such as:
31
32static atomic_t my_counter = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
33
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -070034The initializer is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations
35are guaranteed to be correct reflecting the initialized value if the
36initializer is used before runtime. If the initializer is used at runtime, a
37proper implicit or explicit read memory barrier is needed before reading the
38value with atomic_read from another thread.
39
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -070040The second interface can be used at runtime, as in:
41
42 struct foo { atomic_t counter; };
43 ...
44
45 struct foo *k;
46
47 k = kmalloc(sizeof(*k), GFP_KERNEL);
48 if (!k)
49 return -ENOMEM;
50 atomic_set(&k->counter, 0);
51
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -070052The setting is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations by
53all threads are guaranteed to be correct reflecting either the value that has
54been set with this operation or set with another operation. A proper implicit
55or explicit memory barrier is needed before the value set with the operation
56is guaranteed to be readable with atomic_read from another thread.
57
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -070058Next, we have:
59
60 #define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter)
61
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -070062which simply reads the counter value currently visible to the calling thread.
63The read is atomic in that the return value is guaranteed to be one of the
64values initialized or modified with the interface operations if a proper
65implicit or explicit memory barrier is used after possible runtime
66initialization by any other thread and the value is modified only with the
67interface operations. atomic_read does not guarantee that the runtime
68initialization by any other thread is visible yet, so the user of the
69interface must take care of that with a proper implicit or explicit memory
70barrier.
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -070071
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -070072*** WARNING: atomic_read() and atomic_set() DO NOT IMPLY BARRIERS! ***
73
74Some architectures may choose to use the volatile keyword, barriers, or inline
75assembly to guarantee some degree of immediacy for atomic_read() and
76atomic_set(). This is not uniformly guaranteed, and may change in the future,
77so all users of atomic_t should treat atomic_read() and atomic_set() as simple
78C statements that may be reordered or optimized away entirely by the compiler
79or processor, and explicitly invoke the appropriate compiler and/or memory
80barrier for each use case. Failure to do so will result in code that may
81suddenly break when used with different architectures or compiler
82optimizations, or even changes in unrelated code which changes how the
83compiler optimizes the section accessing atomic_t variables.
84
85*** YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! ***
86
Paul E. McKenney182dd4b2011-11-22 10:55:12 -080087Properly aligned pointers, longs, ints, and chars (and unsigned
88equivalents) may be atomically loaded from and stored to in the same
89sense as described for atomic_read() and atomic_set(). The ACCESS_ONCE()
90macro should be used to prevent the compiler from using optimizations
91that might otherwise optimize accesses out of existence on the one hand,
92or that might create unsolicited accesses on the other.
93
94For example consider the following code:
95
96 while (a > 0)
97 do_something();
98
99If the compiler can prove that do_something() does not store to the
100variable a, then the compiler is within its rights transforming this to
101the following:
102
103 tmp = a;
104 if (a > 0)
105 for (;;)
106 do_something();
107
108If you don't want the compiler to do this (and you probably don't), then
109you should use something like the following:
110
111 while (ACCESS_ONCE(a) < 0)
112 do_something();
113
114Alternatively, you could place a barrier() call in the loop.
115
116For another example, consider the following code:
117
118 tmp_a = a;
119 do_something_with(tmp_a);
120 do_something_else_with(tmp_a);
121
122If the compiler can prove that do_something_with() does not store to the
123variable a, then the compiler is within its rights to manufacture an
124additional load as follows:
125
126 tmp_a = a;
127 do_something_with(tmp_a);
128 tmp_a = a;
129 do_something_else_with(tmp_a);
130
131This could fatally confuse your code if it expected the same value
132to be passed to do_something_with() and do_something_else_with().
133
134The compiler would be likely to manufacture this additional load if
135do_something_with() was an inline function that made very heavy use
136of registers: reloading from variable a could save a flush to the
137stack and later reload. To prevent the compiler from attacking your
138code in this manner, write the following:
139
140 tmp_a = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
141 do_something_with(tmp_a);
142 do_something_else_with(tmp_a);
143
144For a final example, consider the following code, assuming that the
145variable a is set at boot time before the second CPU is brought online
146and never changed later, so that memory barriers are not needed:
147
148 if (a)
149 b = 9;
150 else
151 b = 42;
152
153The compiler is within its rights to manufacture an additional store
154by transforming the above code into the following:
155
156 b = 42;
157 if (a)
158 b = 9;
159
160This could come as a fatal surprise to other code running concurrently
161that expected b to never have the value 42 if a was zero. To prevent
162the compiler from doing this, write something like:
163
164 if (a)
165 ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 9;
166 else
167 ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 42;
168
169Don't even -think- about doing this without proper use of memory barriers,
170locks, or atomic operations if variable a can change at runtime!
171
172*** WARNING: ACCESS_ONCE() DOES NOT IMPLY A BARRIER! ***
173
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -0700174Now, we move onto the atomic operation interfaces typically implemented with
175the help of assembly code.
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700176
177 void atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v);
178 void atomic_sub(int i, atomic_t *v);
179 void atomic_inc(atomic_t *v);
180 void atomic_dec(atomic_t *v);
181
182These four routines add and subtract integral values to/from the given
183atomic_t value. The first two routines pass explicit integers by
184which to make the adjustment, whereas the latter two use an implicit
185adjustment value of "1".
186
187One very important aspect of these two routines is that they DO NOT
188require any explicit memory barriers. They need only perform the
189atomic_t counter update in an SMP safe manner.
190
191Next, we have:
192
193 int atomic_inc_return(atomic_t *v);
194 int atomic_dec_return(atomic_t *v);
195
196These routines add 1 and subtract 1, respectively, from the given
197atomic_t and return the new counter value after the operation is
198performed.
199
200Unlike the above routines, it is required that explicit memory
201barriers are performed before and after the operation. It must be
202done such that all memory operations before and after the atomic
203operation calls are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic
204operation itself.
205
206For example, it should behave as if a smp_mb() call existed both
207before and after the atomic operation.
208
209If the atomic instructions used in an implementation provide explicit
210memory barrier semantics which satisfy the above requirements, that is
211fine as well.
212
213Let's move on:
214
215 int atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v);
216 int atomic_sub_return(int i, atomic_t *v);
217
218These behave just like atomic_{inc,dec}_return() except that an
219explicit counter adjustment is given instead of the implicit "1".
220This means that like atomic_{inc,dec}_return(), the memory barrier
221semantics are required.
222
223Next:
224
225 int atomic_inc_and_test(atomic_t *v);
226 int atomic_dec_and_test(atomic_t *v);
227
228These two routines increment and decrement by 1, respectively, the
229given atomic counter. They return a boolean indicating whether the
230resulting counter value was zero or not.
231
232It requires explicit memory barrier semantics around the operation as
233above.
234
235 int atomic_sub_and_test(int i, atomic_t *v);
236
237This is identical to atomic_dec_and_test() except that an explicit
238decrement is given instead of the implicit "1". It requires explicit
239memory barrier semantics around the operation.
240
241 int atomic_add_negative(int i, atomic_t *v);
242
243The given increment is added to the given atomic counter value. A
244boolean is return which indicates whether the resulting counter value
245is negative. It requires explicit memory barrier semantics around the
246operation.
247
Nick Piggin8426e1f2005-11-13 16:07:25 -0800248Then:
Nick Piggin4a6dae62005-11-13 16:07:24 -0800249
Matti Linnanvuori8d7b52d2007-10-16 23:30:08 -0700250 int atomic_xchg(atomic_t *v, int new);
251
252This performs an atomic exchange operation on the atomic variable v, setting
253the given new value. It returns the old value that the atomic variable v had
254just before the operation.
255
Richard Braun7e8b1e72012-12-13 11:07:32 +0100256atomic_xchg requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
257
Nick Piggin4a6dae62005-11-13 16:07:24 -0800258 int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *v, int old, int new);
259
260This performs an atomic compare exchange operation on the atomic value v,
261with the given old and new values. Like all atomic_xxx operations,
262atomic_cmpxchg will only satisfy its atomicity semantics as long as all
263other accesses of *v are performed through atomic_xxx operations.
264
265atomic_cmpxchg requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
266
267The semantics for atomic_cmpxchg are the same as those defined for 'cas'
268below.
269
Nick Piggin8426e1f2005-11-13 16:07:25 -0800270Finally:
271
272 int atomic_add_unless(atomic_t *v, int a, int u);
273
274If the atomic value v is not equal to u, this function adds a to v, and
275returns non zero. If v is equal to u then it returns zero. This is done as
276an atomic operation.
277
Oleg Nesterov02c608c2008-02-24 00:03:29 +0300278atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
279unless it fails (returns 0).
Nick Piggin8426e1f2005-11-13 16:07:25 -0800280
281atomic_inc_not_zero, equivalent to atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0)
282
Nick Piggin4a6dae62005-11-13 16:07:24 -0800283
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700284If a caller requires memory barrier semantics around an atomic_t
285operation which does not return a value, a set of interfaces are
286defined which accomplish this:
287
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100288 void smp_mb__before_atomic(void);
289 void smp_mb__after_atomic(void);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700290
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100291For example, smp_mb__before_atomic() can be used like so:
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700292
293 obj->dead = 1;
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100294 smp_mb__before_atomic();
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700295 atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
296
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200297It makes sure that all memory operations preceding the atomic_dec()
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700298call are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic counter
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200299operation. In the above example, it guarantees that the assignment of
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700300"1" to obj->dead will be globally visible to other cpus before the
301atomic counter decrement.
302
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100303Without the explicit smp_mb__before_atomic() call, the
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700304implementation could legally allow the atomic counter update visible
305to other cpus before the "obj->dead = 1;" assignment.
306
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700307A missing memory barrier in the cases where they are required by the
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200308atomic_t implementation above can have disastrous results. Here is
309an example, which follows a pattern occurring frequently in the Linux
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700310kernel. It is the use of atomic counters to implement reference
311counting, and it works such that once the counter falls to zero it can
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200312be guaranteed that no other entity can be accessing the object:
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700313
Figo.zhang4764e282009-06-16 15:33:51 -0700314static void obj_list_add(struct obj *obj, struct list_head *head)
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700315{
316 obj->active = 1;
Figo.zhang4764e282009-06-16 15:33:51 -0700317 list_add(&obj->list, head);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700318}
319
320static void obj_list_del(struct obj *obj)
321{
322 list_del(&obj->list);
323 obj->active = 0;
324}
325
326static void obj_destroy(struct obj *obj)
327{
328 BUG_ON(obj->active);
329 kfree(obj);
330}
331
332struct obj *obj_list_peek(struct list_head *head)
333{
334 if (!list_empty(head)) {
335 struct obj *obj;
336
337 obj = list_entry(head->next, struct obj, list);
338 atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt);
339 return obj;
340 }
341 return NULL;
342}
343
344void obj_poke(void)
345{
346 struct obj *obj;
347
348 spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
349 obj = obj_list_peek(&global_list);
350 spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
351
352 if (obj) {
353 obj->ops->poke(obj);
354 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
355 obj_destroy(obj);
356 }
357}
358
359void obj_timeout(struct obj *obj)
360{
361 spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
362 obj_list_del(obj);
363 spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
364
365 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
366 obj_destroy(obj);
367}
368
369(This is a simplification of the ARP queue management in the
370 generic neighbour discover code of the networking. Olaf Kirch
371 found a bug wrt. memory barriers in kfree_skb() that exposed
372 the atomic_t memory barrier requirements quite clearly.)
373
374Given the above scheme, it must be the case that the obj->active
375update done by the obj list deletion be visible to other processors
376before the atomic counter decrement is performed.
377
378Otherwise, the counter could fall to zero, yet obj->active would still
379be set, thus triggering the assertion in obj_destroy(). The error
380sequence looks like this:
381
382 cpu 0 cpu 1
383 obj_poke() obj_timeout()
384 obj = obj_list_peek();
385 ... gains ref to obj, refcnt=2
386 obj_list_del(obj);
387 obj->active = 0 ...
388 ... visibility delayed ...
389 atomic_dec_and_test()
390 ... refcnt drops to 1 ...
391 atomic_dec_and_test()
392 ... refcount drops to 0 ...
393 obj_destroy()
394 BUG() triggers since obj->active
395 still seen as one
396 obj->active update visibility occurs
397
398With the memory barrier semantics required of the atomic_t operations
399which return values, the above sequence of memory visibility can never
400happen. Specifically, in the above case the atomic_dec_and_test()
401counter decrement would not become globally visible until the
402obj->active update does.
403
404As a historical note, 32-bit Sparc used to only allow usage of
Francis Galieguea33f3222010-04-23 00:08:02 +020040524-bits of its atomic_t type. This was because it used 8 bits
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700406as a spinlock for SMP safety. Sparc32 lacked a "compare and swap"
407type instruction. However, 32-bit Sparc has since been moved over
408to a "hash table of spinlocks" scheme, that allows the full 32-bit
409counter to be realized. Essentially, an array of spinlocks are
410indexed into based upon the address of the atomic_t being operated
411on, and that lock protects the atomic operation. Parisc uses the
412same scheme.
413
414Another note is that the atomic_t operations returning values are
415extremely slow on an old 386.
416
417We will now cover the atomic bitmask operations. You will find that
418their SMP and memory barrier semantics are similar in shape and scope
419to the atomic_t ops above.
420
421Native atomic bit operations are defined to operate on objects aligned
422to the size of an "unsigned long" C data type, and are least of that
423size. The endianness of the bits within each "unsigned long" are the
424native endianness of the cpu.
425
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200426 void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
427 void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
428 void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700429
430These routines set, clear, and change, respectively, the bit number
431indicated by "nr" on the bit mask pointed to by "ADDR".
432
433They must execute atomically, yet there are no implicit memory barrier
434semantics required of these interfaces.
435
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200436 int test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
437 int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
438 int test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700439
440Like the above, except that these routines return a boolean which
441indicates whether the changed bit was set _BEFORE_ the atomic bit
442operation.
443
444WARNING! It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean,
445ie. "0" or "1". Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by
446declaring the above to return "long" and just returning something like
447"old_val & mask" because that will not work.
448
449For one thing, this return value gets truncated to int in many code
450paths using these interfaces, so on 64-bit if the bit is set in the
451upper 32-bits then testers will never see that.
452
453One great example of where this problem crops up are the thread_info
454flag operations. Routines such as test_and_set_ti_thread_flag() chop
455the return value into an int. There are other places where things
456like this occur as well.
457
458These routines, like the atomic_t counter operations returning values,
459require explicit memory barrier semantics around their execution. All
460memory operations before the atomic bit operation call must be made
461visible globally before the atomic bit operation is made visible.
462Likewise, the atomic bit operation must be visible globally before any
463subsequent memory operation is made visible. For example:
464
465 obj->dead = 1;
466 if (test_and_set_bit(0, &obj->flags))
467 /* ... */;
468 obj->killed = 1;
469
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200470The implementation of test_and_set_bit() must guarantee that
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700471"obj->dead = 1;" is visible to cpus before the atomic memory operation
472done by test_and_set_bit() becomes visible. Likewise, the atomic
473memory operation done by test_and_set_bit() must become visible before
474"obj->killed = 1;" is visible.
475
476Finally there is the basic operation:
477
478 int test_bit(unsigned long nr, __const__ volatile unsigned long *addr);
479
480Which returns a boolean indicating if bit "nr" is set in the bitmask
481pointed to by "addr".
482
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100483If explicit memory barriers are required around {set,clear}_bit() (which do
484not return a value, and thus does not need to provide memory barrier
485semantics), two interfaces are provided:
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700486
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100487 void smp_mb__before_atomic(void);
488 void smp_mb__after_atomic(void);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700489
490They are used as follows, and are akin to their atomic_t operation
491brothers:
492
493 /* All memory operations before this call will
494 * be globally visible before the clear_bit().
495 */
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100496 smp_mb__before_atomic();
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700497 clear_bit( ... );
498
499 /* The clear_bit() will be visible before all
500 * subsequent memory operations.
501 */
Peter Zijlstra1b156112014-03-13 19:00:35 +0100502 smp_mb__after_atomic();
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700503
Nick Piggin26333572007-10-18 03:06:39 -0700504There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release,
505same as spinlocks). These operate in the same way as their non-_lock/unlock
506postfixed variants, except that they are to provide acquire/release semantics,
507respectively. This means they can be used for bit_spin_trylock and
508bit_spin_unlock type operations without specifying any more barriers.
509
510 int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
511 void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
512 void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
513
514The __clear_bit_unlock version is non-atomic, however it still implements
515unlock barrier semantics. This can be useful if the lock itself is protecting
516the other bits in the word.
517
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700518Finally, there are non-atomic versions of the bitmask operations
519provided. They are used in contexts where some other higher-level SMP
520locking scheme is being used to protect the bitmask, and thus less
521expensive non-atomic operations may be used in the implementation.
522They have names similar to the above bitmask operation interfaces,
523except that two underscores are prefixed to the interface name.
524
525 void __set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
526 void __clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
527 void __change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
528 int __test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
529 int __test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
530 int __test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
531
532These non-atomic variants also do not require any special memory
533barrier semantics.
534
535The routines xchg() and cmpxchg() need the same exact memory barriers
536as the atomic and bit operations returning values.
537
538Spinlocks and rwlocks have memory barrier expectations as well.
539The rule to follow is simple:
540
5411) When acquiring a lock, the implementation must make it globally
542 visible before any subsequent memory operation.
543
5442) When releasing a lock, the implementation must make it such that
545 all previous memory operations are globally visible before the
546 lock release.
547
548Which finally brings us to _atomic_dec_and_lock(). There is an
549architecture-neutral version implemented in lib/dec_and_lock.c,
550but most platforms will wish to optimize this in assembler.
551
552 int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock);
553
554Atomically decrement the given counter, and if will drop to zero
555atomically acquire the given spinlock and perform the decrement
556of the counter to zero. If it does not drop to zero, do nothing
557with the spinlock.
558
559It is actually pretty simple to get the memory barrier correct.
560Simply satisfy the spinlock grab requirements, which is make
561sure the spinlock operation is globally visible before any
562subsequent memory operation.
563
564We can demonstrate this operation more clearly if we define
565an abstract atomic operation:
566
567 long cas(long *mem, long old, long new);
568
569"cas" stands for "compare and swap". It atomically:
570
5711) Compares "old" with the value currently at "mem".
5722) If they are equal, "new" is written to "mem".
5733) Regardless, the current value at "mem" is returned.
574
575As an example usage, here is what an atomic counter update
576might look like:
577
578void example_atomic_inc(long *counter)
579{
580 long old, new, ret;
581
582 while (1) {
583 old = *counter;
584 new = old + 1;
585
586 ret = cas(counter, old, new);
587 if (ret == old)
588 break;
589 }
590}
591
592Let's use cas() in order to build a pseudo-C atomic_dec_and_lock():
593
594int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock)
595{
596 long old, new, ret;
597 int went_to_zero;
598
599 went_to_zero = 0;
600 while (1) {
601 old = atomic_read(atomic);
602 new = old - 1;
603 if (new == 0) {
604 went_to_zero = 1;
605 spin_lock(lock);
606 }
607 ret = cas(atomic, old, new);
608 if (ret == old)
609 break;
610 if (went_to_zero) {
611 spin_unlock(lock);
612 went_to_zero = 0;
613 }
614 }
615
616 return went_to_zero;
617}
618
619Now, as far as memory barriers go, as long as spin_lock()
620strictly orders all subsequent memory operations (including
621the cas()) with respect to itself, things will be fine.
622
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200623Said another way, _atomic_dec_and_lock() must guarantee that
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700624a counter dropping to zero is never made visible before the
625spinlock being acquired.
626
627Note that this also means that for the case where the counter
628is not dropping to zero, there are no memory ordering
629requirements.