[PATCH,RESEND] documentation: atomic_add_unless() doesn't imply mb() on failure

[PATCH,RESEND] documentation: atomic_add_unless() doesn't imply mb() on failure

[Oleg Nesterov]

(the explicit ack/nack from maintainers is wanted).

A "typical" implementation of atomic_add_unless() can return 0 immediately
after the first atomic_read() (before doing cmpxchg). In that case it doesn't
provide any barrier semantics. See include/asm-ia64/atomic.h as an example.

We should either change the implementation, or fix the docs.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>

 Documentation/atomic_ops.txt      |    3 ++-
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff -puN Documentation/atomic_ops.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
--- a/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure
+++ a/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
@@ -137,7 +137,8 @@ If the atomic value v is not equal to u,
 returns non zero. If v is equal to u then it returns zero. This is done as
 an atomic operation.
 
-atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
+atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
+unless it fails (returns 0).
 
 atomic_inc_not_zero, equivalent to atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0)
 
diff -puN Documentation/memory-barriers.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure
+++ a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1492,7 +1492,7 @@ about the state (old or new) implies an 
 	atomic_dec_and_test();
 	atomic_sub_and_test();
 	atomic_add_negative();
-	atomic_add_unless();
+	atomic_add_unless();	/* when succeeds (returns 1) */
 	test_and_set_bit();
 	test_and_clear_bit();
 	test_and_change_bit();
_

Re: [PATCH,RESEND] documentation: atomic_add_unless() doesn't imply mb() on failure

[Nick Piggin]

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> (the explicit ack/nack from maintainers is wanted).
> 
> A "typical" implementation of atomic_add_unless() can return 0 immediately
> after the first atomic_read() (before doing cmpxchg). In that case it doesn't
> provide any barrier semantics. See include/asm-ia64/atomic.h as an example.
> 
> We should either change the implementation, or fix the docs.

Did this end up getting merged? If not, it should, thanks.

Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
> 
>  Documentation/atomic_ops.txt      |    3 ++-
>  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -puN Documentation/atomic_ops.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
> --- a/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure
> +++ a/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
> @@ -137,7 +137,8 @@ If the atomic value v is not equal to u,
>  returns non zero. If v is equal to u then it returns zero. This is done as
>  an atomic operation.
>  
> -atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
> +atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
> +unless it fails (returns 0).
>  
>  atomic_inc_not_zero, equivalent to atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0)
>  
> diff -puN Documentation/memory-barriers.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt~doc-atomic_add_unless-doesnt-imply-mb-on-failure
> +++ a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1492,7 +1492,7 @@ about the state (old or new) implies an 
>  	atomic_dec_and_test();
>  	atomic_sub_and_test();
>  	atomic_add_negative();
> -	atomic_add_unless();
> +	atomic_add_unless();	/* when succeeds (returns 1) */
>  	test_and_set_bit();
>  	test_and_clear_bit();
>  	test_and_change_bit();
> _
> 
> 


-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.