lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + atomic-improve-atomic_inc_unless_negative-atomic_dec_unless_positive .patch added to -mm tree
On 03/15, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 03/15, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > static inline int atomic_inc_unless_negative(atomic_t *p)
> >> > {
> >> > int v, v1;
> >> > - for (v = 0; v >= 0; v = v1) {
> >> > + for (v = atomic_read(p); v >= 0; v = v1) {
> >> > v1 = atomic_cmpxchg(p, v, v + 1);
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the above will exchange the current value even though
> >> it is negative, so it isn't correct.
> >
> > Hmm, why? We always check "v >= 0" before we try to do
> > atomic_cmpxchg(old => v) ?
>
> Sorry, yes, you are right. But then your patch is basically same with the
> previous one, isn't it?

Sure, the logic is the same, just the patch (and the code) looks simpler
and more understandable.

> And has same problem, see below discussion:
>
> http://marc.info/?t=136284366900001&r=1&w=2

The lack of the barrier?

I thought about this, this should be fine? atomic_add_unless() has the same
"problem", but this is documented in atomic_ops.txt:

atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
unless it fails (returns 0).

I thought that atomic_add_unless_negative() should have the same
guarantees?

Paul? Frederic?

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-15 19:41    [W:0.084 / U:0.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site