From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] atomic/bitops: Clarify ordering semantics for failed test_and_{}_bit()
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:30:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1518528619-20049-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> (raw)
A test_and_{}_bit() operation fails if the value of the bit is such that
the modification does not take place. For example, if test_and_set_bit()
returns 1. In these cases, follow the behaviour of cmpxchg and allow the
operation to be unordered. This also applies to test_and_set_bit_lock()
if the lock is found to be be taken already.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt | 7 ++++++-
include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt b/Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt
index 5550bfdcce5f..be70b32c95d9 100644
--- a/Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt
+++ b/Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt
@@ -58,7 +58,12 @@ Like with atomic_t, the rule of thumb is:
- RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered.
-Except for test_and_set_bit_lock() which has ACQUIRE semantics and
+ - RMW operations that are conditional are unordered on FAILURE,
+ otherwise the above rules apply. In the case of test_and_{}_bit() operations,
+ if the bit in memory is unchanged by the operation then it is deemed to have
+ failed.
+
+Except for a successful test_and_set_bit_lock() which has ACQUIRE semantics and
clear_bit_unlock() which has RELEASE semantics.
Since a platform only has a single means of achieving atomic operations
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
index bc397573c43a..67ab280ad134 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
@@ -7,7 +7,8 @@
* @nr: Bit to set
* @addr: Address to count from
*
- * This operation is atomic and provides acquire barrier semantics.
+ * This operation is atomic and provides acquire barrier semantics if
+ * the returned value is 0.
* It can be used to implement bit locks.
*/
#define test_and_set_bit_lock(nr, addr) test_and_set_bit(nr, addr)
--
2.1.4
next reply other threads:[~2018-02-13 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-13 13:30 Will Deacon [this message]
2018-02-13 13:51 ` [PATCH] atomic/bitops: Clarify ordering semantics for failed test_and_{}_bit() Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-13 15:28 ` [tip:locking/urgent] locking/atomic/bitops: Document and clarify " tip-bot for Will Deacon
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=1518528619-20049-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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