From: Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@bull.net>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] IA64: Slim down __clear_bit_unlock
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:36:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <477CE4C8.4000807@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200711212258.lALMwPnR013399@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 734 bytes --]
Please have a look at the patch below.
Taking this opportunity, in addition:
- I removed the useless "volatile" stuff from the non-atomic versions
of the bit operations.
- I removed the unnecessary barrier() from __clear_bit_unlock().
ia64_st4_rel_nta() makes sure all the modifications are globally
seen before the bit is seen to be off.
- I made __clear_bit() modeled after __set_bit() and __change_bit().
- I corrected some comments sating that a memory barrier is provided,
yet in reality, it is the acquisition side of the memory barrier only.
- I corrected some comments, e.g. test_and_clear_bit() was peaking
about "bit to set".
Signed-off-by: Zoltan Menyhart, <Zoltan.Menyhart@bull.net>
Thanks,
Zoltan Menyhart
[-- Attachment #2: diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4690 bytes --]
--- include/asm/bitops.h-old 2007-12-21 02:25:48.000000000 +0100
+++ include/asm/bitops.h 2008-01-03 14:25:17.000000000 +0100
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
* may be that only one operation succeeds.
*/
static __inline__ void
-__set_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
+__set_bit (int nr, void *addr)
{
*((__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5)) |= (1 << (nr & 31));
}
@@ -122,38 +122,40 @@
}
/**
- * __clear_bit_unlock - Non-atomically clear a bit with release
+ * __clear_bit_unlock - Non-atomically clears a bit in memory with release
+ * @nr: Bit to clear
+ * @addr: Address to start counting from
*
- * This is like clear_bit_unlock, but the implementation uses a store
+ * Similarly to clear_bit_unlock, the implementation uses a store
* with release semantics. See also __raw_spin_unlock().
*/
static __inline__ void
-__clear_bit_unlock(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+__clear_bit_unlock(int nr, void *addr)
{
- __u32 mask, new;
- volatile __u32 *m;
+ __u32 * const m = (__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5);
+ __u32 const new = *m & ~(1 << (nr & 31));
- m = (volatile __u32 *)addr + (nr >> 5);
- mask = ~(1 << (nr & 31));
- new = *m & mask;
- barrier();
ia64_st4_rel_nta(m, new);
}
/**
* __clear_bit - Clears a bit in memory (non-atomic version)
+ * @nr: the bit to clear
+ * @addr: the address to start counting from
+ *
+ * Unlike clear_bit(), this function is non-atomic and may be reordered.
+ * If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect
+ * may be that only one operation succeeds.
*/
static __inline__ void
-__clear_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
+__clear_bit (int nr, void *addr)
{
- volatile __u32 *p = (__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5);
- __u32 m = 1 << (nr & 31);
- *p &= ~m;
+ *((__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5)) &= ~(1 << (nr & 31));
}
/**
* change_bit - Toggle a bit in memory
- * @nr: Bit to clear
+ * @nr: Bit to toggle
* @addr: Address to start counting from
*
* change_bit() is atomic and may not be reordered.
@@ -178,7 +180,7 @@
/**
* __change_bit - Toggle a bit in memory
- * @nr: the bit to set
+ * @nr: the bit to toggle
* @addr: the address to start counting from
*
* Unlike change_bit(), this function is non-atomic and may be reordered.
@@ -186,7 +188,7 @@
* may be that only one operation succeeds.
*/
static __inline__ void
-__change_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
+__change_bit (int nr, void *addr)
{
*((__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5)) ^= (1 << (nr & 31));
}
@@ -197,7 +199,7 @@
* @addr: Address to count from
*
* This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered.
- * It also implies a memory barrier.
+ * It also implies the acquisition side of the memory barrier.
*/
static __inline__ int
test_and_set_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
@@ -235,7 +237,7 @@
* but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock.
*/
static __inline__ int
-__test_and_set_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
+__test_and_set_bit (int nr, void *addr)
{
__u32 *p = (__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5);
__u32 m = 1 << (nr & 31);
@@ -247,11 +249,11 @@
/**
* test_and_clear_bit - Clear a bit and return its old value
- * @nr: Bit to set
+ * @nr: Bit to clear
* @addr: Address to count from
*
* This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered.
- * It also implies a memory barrier.
+ * It also implies the acquisition side of the memory barrier.
*/
static __inline__ int
test_and_clear_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
@@ -272,7 +274,7 @@
/**
* __test_and_clear_bit - Clear a bit and return its old value
- * @nr: Bit to set
+ * @nr: Bit to clear
* @addr: Address to count from
*
* This operation is non-atomic and can be reordered.
@@ -280,7 +282,7 @@
* but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock.
*/
static __inline__ int
-__test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+__test_and_clear_bit(int nr, void * addr)
{
__u32 *p = (__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5);
__u32 m = 1 << (nr & 31);
@@ -292,11 +294,11 @@
/**
* test_and_change_bit - Change a bit and return its old value
- * @nr: Bit to set
+ * @nr: Bit to change
* @addr: Address to count from
*
* This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered.
- * It also implies a memory barrier.
+ * It also implies the acquisition side of the memory barrier.
*/
static __inline__ int
test_and_change_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
@@ -315,8 +317,12 @@
return (old & bit) != 0;
}
-/*
- * WARNING: non atomic version.
+/**
+ * __test_and_change_bit - Change a bit and return its old value
+ * @nr: Bit to change
+ * @addr: Address to count from
+ *
+ * This operation is non-atomic and can be reordered.
*/
static __inline__ int
__test_and_change_bit (int nr, void *addr)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-03 13:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-21 22:58 [patch 1/3] IA64: Slim down __clear_bit_unlock akpm
2007-11-22 8:40 ` Zoltan Menyhart
2007-12-13 23:58 ` akpm
2008-01-02 9:54 ` Zoltan Menyhart
2008-01-02 20:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-01-03 13:36 ` Zoltan Menyhart [this message]
2008-01-03 22:14 ` Luck, Tony
2008-01-11 2:02 ` Nick Piggin
2008-01-15 13:15 ` [patch 1/3] IA64: Slim down __clear_bit_unlock #2 Zoltan Menyhart
2008-01-16 6:26 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=477CE4C8.4000807@bull.net \
--to=zoltan.menyhart@bull.net \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.