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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox