Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:26:21 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: + atomic-improve-atomic_inc_unless_negative-atomic_dec_unless_positive .patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 07:30:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/15, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 07:34:32PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > 2013/3/15 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>: > > > > > > > > My point was: should we fix atomic_add_unless() then? If not, why > > > > should atomic_add_unless_negative() differ? > > > > > > They shouldn't differ I guess. > > > > Completely agreed. It is not like memory ordering is simple, so we should > > keep the rules simple. > > It is hardly possible to argue with this ;) > > > The rule is that if an atomic primitive returns non-void, then there is > > a full memory barrier before and after. > > This case is documented... > > > This applies to primitives > > returning boolean as well, with atomic_dec_and_test() setting this > > precedent from what I can see. > > I don't think this is the "fair" comparison. Unlike atomic_add_unless(), > atomic_dec_and_test() always changes the memory even if it "fails". > > If atomic_add_unless() returns 0, nothing was changed and if we add > the barrier it is not clear what it should be paired with. > > But OK. I have to agree that "keep the rules simple" makes sense, so > we should change atomic_add_unless() as well.
Agreed!
Thanx, Paul
| |