blob: d9ca5be9b471d18d7c2640625d4845f9da8ff23a [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
288 void smp_mb__before_atomic_dec(void);
289 void smp_mb__after_atomic_dec(void);
290 void smp_mb__before_atomic_inc(void);
Ratnadeep Joshi4249e082007-06-08 13:46:50 -0700291 void smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(void);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700292
293For example, smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() can be used like so:
294
295 obj->dead = 1;
296 smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
297 atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
298
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200299It makes sure that all memory operations preceding the atomic_dec()
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700300call are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic counter
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200301operation. In the above example, it guarantees that the assignment of
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700302"1" to obj->dead will be globally visible to other cpus before the
303atomic counter decrement.
304
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200305Without the explicit smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() call, the
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700306implementation could legally allow the atomic counter update visible
307to other cpus before the "obj->dead = 1;" assignment.
308
309The other three interfaces listed are used to provide explicit
310ordering with respect to memory operations after an atomic_dec() call
311(smp_mb__after_atomic_dec()) and around atomic_inc() calls
312(smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic_inc()).
313
314A missing memory barrier in the cases where they are required by the
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200315atomic_t implementation above can have disastrous results. Here is
316an example, which follows a pattern occurring frequently in the Linux
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700317kernel. It is the use of atomic counters to implement reference
318counting, and it works such that once the counter falls to zero it can
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200319be guaranteed that no other entity can be accessing the object:
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700320
Figo.zhang4764e282009-06-16 15:33:51 -0700321static void obj_list_add(struct obj *obj, struct list_head *head)
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700322{
323 obj->active = 1;
Figo.zhang4764e282009-06-16 15:33:51 -0700324 list_add(&obj->list, head);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700325}
326
327static void obj_list_del(struct obj *obj)
328{
329 list_del(&obj->list);
330 obj->active = 0;
331}
332
333static void obj_destroy(struct obj *obj)
334{
335 BUG_ON(obj->active);
336 kfree(obj);
337}
338
339struct obj *obj_list_peek(struct list_head *head)
340{
341 if (!list_empty(head)) {
342 struct obj *obj;
343
344 obj = list_entry(head->next, struct obj, list);
345 atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt);
346 return obj;
347 }
348 return NULL;
349}
350
351void obj_poke(void)
352{
353 struct obj *obj;
354
355 spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
356 obj = obj_list_peek(&global_list);
357 spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
358
359 if (obj) {
360 obj->ops->poke(obj);
361 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
362 obj_destroy(obj);
363 }
364}
365
366void obj_timeout(struct obj *obj)
367{
368 spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
369 obj_list_del(obj);
370 spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
371
372 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
373 obj_destroy(obj);
374}
375
376(This is a simplification of the ARP queue management in the
377 generic neighbour discover code of the networking. Olaf Kirch
378 found a bug wrt. memory barriers in kfree_skb() that exposed
379 the atomic_t memory barrier requirements quite clearly.)
380
381Given the above scheme, it must be the case that the obj->active
382update done by the obj list deletion be visible to other processors
383before the atomic counter decrement is performed.
384
385Otherwise, the counter could fall to zero, yet obj->active would still
386be set, thus triggering the assertion in obj_destroy(). The error
387sequence looks like this:
388
389 cpu 0 cpu 1
390 obj_poke() obj_timeout()
391 obj = obj_list_peek();
392 ... gains ref to obj, refcnt=2
393 obj_list_del(obj);
394 obj->active = 0 ...
395 ... visibility delayed ...
396 atomic_dec_and_test()
397 ... refcnt drops to 1 ...
398 atomic_dec_and_test()
399 ... refcount drops to 0 ...
400 obj_destroy()
401 BUG() triggers since obj->active
402 still seen as one
403 obj->active update visibility occurs
404
405With the memory barrier semantics required of the atomic_t operations
406which return values, the above sequence of memory visibility can never
407happen. Specifically, in the above case the atomic_dec_and_test()
408counter decrement would not become globally visible until the
409obj->active update does.
410
411As a historical note, 32-bit Sparc used to only allow usage of
Francis Galieguea33f3222010-04-23 00:08:02 +020041224-bits of its atomic_t type. This was because it used 8 bits
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700413as a spinlock for SMP safety. Sparc32 lacked a "compare and swap"
414type instruction. However, 32-bit Sparc has since been moved over
415to a "hash table of spinlocks" scheme, that allows the full 32-bit
416counter to be realized. Essentially, an array of spinlocks are
417indexed into based upon the address of the atomic_t being operated
418on, and that lock protects the atomic operation. Parisc uses the
419same scheme.
420
421Another note is that the atomic_t operations returning values are
422extremely slow on an old 386.
423
424We will now cover the atomic bitmask operations. You will find that
425their SMP and memory barrier semantics are similar in shape and scope
426to the atomic_t ops above.
427
428Native atomic bit operations are defined to operate on objects aligned
429to the size of an "unsigned long" C data type, and are least of that
430size. The endianness of the bits within each "unsigned long" are the
431native endianness of the cpu.
432
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200433 void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
434 void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
435 void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700436
437These routines set, clear, and change, respectively, the bit number
438indicated by "nr" on the bit mask pointed to by "ADDR".
439
440They must execute atomically, yet there are no implicit memory barrier
441semantics required of these interfaces.
442
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200443 int test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
444 int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
445 int test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700446
447Like the above, except that these routines return a boolean which
448indicates whether the changed bit was set _BEFORE_ the atomic bit
449operation.
450
451WARNING! It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean,
452ie. "0" or "1". Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by
453declaring the above to return "long" and just returning something like
454"old_val & mask" because that will not work.
455
456For one thing, this return value gets truncated to int in many code
457paths using these interfaces, so on 64-bit if the bit is set in the
458upper 32-bits then testers will never see that.
459
460One great example of where this problem crops up are the thread_info
461flag operations. Routines such as test_and_set_ti_thread_flag() chop
462the return value into an int. There are other places where things
463like this occur as well.
464
465These routines, like the atomic_t counter operations returning values,
466require explicit memory barrier semantics around their execution. All
467memory operations before the atomic bit operation call must be made
468visible globally before the atomic bit operation is made visible.
469Likewise, the atomic bit operation must be visible globally before any
470subsequent memory operation is made visible. For example:
471
472 obj->dead = 1;
473 if (test_and_set_bit(0, &obj->flags))
474 /* ... */;
475 obj->killed = 1;
476
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200477The implementation of test_and_set_bit() must guarantee that
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700478"obj->dead = 1;" is visible to cpus before the atomic memory operation
479done by test_and_set_bit() becomes visible. Likewise, the atomic
480memory operation done by test_and_set_bit() must become visible before
481"obj->killed = 1;" is visible.
482
483Finally there is the basic operation:
484
485 int test_bit(unsigned long nr, __const__ volatile unsigned long *addr);
486
487Which returns a boolean indicating if bit "nr" is set in the bitmask
488pointed to by "addr".
489
490If explicit memory barriers are required around clear_bit() (which
491does not return a value, and thus does not need to provide memory
492barrier semantics), two interfaces are provided:
493
494 void smp_mb__before_clear_bit(void);
495 void smp_mb__after_clear_bit(void);
496
497They are used as follows, and are akin to their atomic_t operation
498brothers:
499
500 /* All memory operations before this call will
501 * be globally visible before the clear_bit().
502 */
503 smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
504 clear_bit( ... );
505
506 /* The clear_bit() will be visible before all
507 * subsequent memory operations.
508 */
509 smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
510
Nick Piggin26333572007-10-18 03:06:39 -0700511There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release,
512same as spinlocks). These operate in the same way as their non-_lock/unlock
513postfixed variants, except that they are to provide acquire/release semantics,
514respectively. This means they can be used for bit_spin_trylock and
515bit_spin_unlock type operations without specifying any more barriers.
516
517 int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
518 void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
519 void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
520
521The __clear_bit_unlock version is non-atomic, however it still implements
522unlock barrier semantics. This can be useful if the lock itself is protecting
523the other bits in the word.
524
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700525Finally, there are non-atomic versions of the bitmask operations
526provided. They are used in contexts where some other higher-level SMP
527locking scheme is being used to protect the bitmask, and thus less
528expensive non-atomic operations may be used in the implementation.
529They have names similar to the above bitmask operation interfaces,
530except that two underscores are prefixed to the interface name.
531
532 void __set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
533 void __clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
534 void __change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
535 int __test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
536 int __test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
537 int __test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
538
539These non-atomic variants also do not require any special memory
540barrier semantics.
541
542The routines xchg() and cmpxchg() need the same exact memory barriers
543as the atomic and bit operations returning values.
544
545Spinlocks and rwlocks have memory barrier expectations as well.
546The rule to follow is simple:
547
5481) When acquiring a lock, the implementation must make it globally
549 visible before any subsequent memory operation.
550
5512) When releasing a lock, the implementation must make it such that
552 all previous memory operations are globally visible before the
553 lock release.
554
555Which finally brings us to _atomic_dec_and_lock(). There is an
556architecture-neutral version implemented in lib/dec_and_lock.c,
557but most platforms will wish to optimize this in assembler.
558
559 int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock);
560
561Atomically decrement the given counter, and if will drop to zero
562atomically acquire the given spinlock and perform the decrement
563of the counter to zero. If it does not drop to zero, do nothing
564with the spinlock.
565
566It is actually pretty simple to get the memory barrier correct.
567Simply satisfy the spinlock grab requirements, which is make
568sure the spinlock operation is globally visible before any
569subsequent memory operation.
570
571We can demonstrate this operation more clearly if we define
572an abstract atomic operation:
573
574 long cas(long *mem, long old, long new);
575
576"cas" stands for "compare and swap". It atomically:
577
5781) Compares "old" with the value currently at "mem".
5792) If they are equal, "new" is written to "mem".
5803) Regardless, the current value at "mem" is returned.
581
582As an example usage, here is what an atomic counter update
583might look like:
584
585void example_atomic_inc(long *counter)
586{
587 long old, new, ret;
588
589 while (1) {
590 old = *counter;
591 new = old + 1;
592
593 ret = cas(counter, old, new);
594 if (ret == old)
595 break;
596 }
597}
598
599Let's use cas() in order to build a pseudo-C atomic_dec_and_lock():
600
601int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock)
602{
603 long old, new, ret;
604 int went_to_zero;
605
606 went_to_zero = 0;
607 while (1) {
608 old = atomic_read(atomic);
609 new = old - 1;
610 if (new == 0) {
611 went_to_zero = 1;
612 spin_lock(lock);
613 }
614 ret = cas(atomic, old, new);
615 if (ret == old)
616 break;
617 if (went_to_zero) {
618 spin_unlock(lock);
619 went_to_zero = 0;
620 }
621 }
622
623 return went_to_zero;
624}
625
626Now, as far as memory barriers go, as long as spin_lock()
627strictly orders all subsequent memory operations (including
628the cas()) with respect to itself, things will be fine.
629
Michael Hayesa0ebb3f2006-06-26 18:27:35 +0200630Said another way, _atomic_dec_and_lock() must guarantee that
Linus Torvalds1da177e2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700631a counter dropping to zero is never made visible before the
632spinlock being acquired.
633
634Note that this also means that for the case where the counter
635is not dropping to zero, there are no memory ordering
636requirements.