From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] xen/atomic: Implement atomic_{inc,
	dec}_bounded()
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:17:12 +0100
Message-ID: <53B41468.9060300@citrix.com>
References: <1404308871-23368-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1404308871-23368-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<53B42DD3020000780001F977@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <53B42DD3020000780001F977@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 02/07/14 15:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 02.07.14 at 15:47, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> These will increment/decremented an atomic_t, while ensuring that the 
>> atomic_t
>> doesn't hit a specific bound.
>>
>> This involves introducing atomic_cmpxchg() for x86, which previously only
>> existed on ARM.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> You should be getting used to Cc all "REST" maintainers on respective
> changes.

Oops yes - I will see about updating my auto-cc list hooks.

>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/xen/common/atomic.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
>> +#include <xen/atomic.h>
>> +
>> +bool_t atomic_inc_bounded(atomic_t *v, int bound)
>> +{
>> +    int old, new, prev = atomic_read(v);
>> +
>> +    do
>> +    {
>> +        old = prev;
>> +        new = old + 1;
>> +        if ( new >= bound )
>> +            return 0;
>> +
>> +        prev = atomic_cmpxchg(v, old, new);
>> +    } while ( prev != old );
>> +
>> +    return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +bool_t atomic_dec_bounded(atomic_t *v, int bound)
>> +{
>> +    int old, new, prev = atomic_read(v);
>> +
>> +    do
>> +    {
>> +        old = prev;
>> +        new = old - 1;
>> +        if ( new <= bound )
>> +            return 0;
>> +
>> +        prev = atomic_cmpxchg(v, old, new);
>> +    } while ( prev != old );
>> +
>> +    return 1;
>> +}
> Same question here: Do we really need these? There are various uses
> of cmpxchg() in common code already, and in patch 3 you don't really
> need the cmpxchg to happen on an atomic_t, so plain cmpxchg() with
> the little bit of extra logic open coded would seem fine to me.
>
> Jan
>

These as in atomic_{inc,dec}_bounded() ?

They logically fit alongside atomic_{inc,dec}_and_test(), and I came to
the conclusion that they would likely be useful elsewhere.

I realise that these are not fantastic reasons alone...

~Andrew