mirror of
https://github.com/AuxXxilium/linux_dsm_epyc7002.git
synced 2024-11-24 04:00:52 +07:00
Documentation/locking/atomic: Finish the document...
Julia reported that the document looked unfinished, and it is. I forgot to include the example cooked up by Paul here: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170731174345.GL3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com and I added an explicit example showing how, while it is an ACQUIRE pattern, it really does provide an MB. Reported-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
e6f3faa734
commit
ca110694c6
@ -197,4 +197,46 @@ Further, while something like:
|
||||
is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than
|
||||
a RELEASE. Similarly for something like:
|
||||
|
||||
atomic_inc(&X);
|
||||
smp_mb__after_atomic();
|
||||
|
||||
is an ACQUIRE pattern (though very much not typical), but again the barrier is
|
||||
strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illustrated:
|
||||
|
||||
C strong-acquire
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
|
||||
{
|
||||
r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
|
||||
smp_rmb();
|
||||
r1 = atomic_read(y);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
P2(int *x, atomic_t *y)
|
||||
{
|
||||
atomic_inc(y);
|
||||
smp_mb__after_atomic();
|
||||
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
exists
|
||||
(r0=1 /\ r1=0)
|
||||
|
||||
This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() --
|
||||
(void)atomic_fetch_inc_acquire() for instance -- would allow the outcome,
|
||||
since then:
|
||||
|
||||
P1 P2
|
||||
|
||||
t = LL.acq *y (0)
|
||||
t++;
|
||||
*x = 1;
|
||||
r0 = *x (1)
|
||||
RMB
|
||||
r1 = *y (0)
|
||||
SC *y, t;
|
||||
|
||||
is allowed.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user