lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v3]: documentation,atomic: Add new documents
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:43:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Why wouldn't the following have ACQUIRE semantics?
>
> atomic_inc(&var);
> smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> Is the issue that there is no actual value returned or some such?

Yes, so that the inc is a load-store, and thus there is a load, we loose
the value.

But I see your point I think. Irrespective of still having the value,
the ordering is preserved and nothing should pass across that.

> So if I have something like this, the assertion really can trigger?
>
> WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); atomic_inc(&y);
> r0 = xchg_release(&y, 5); smp_mb__after_atomic();
> r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
>
>
> WARN_ON(r0 == 0 && r1 == 0);
>
> I must confess that I am not seeing why we would want to allow this
> outcome.

No you are indeed quite right. I just wasn't creative enough. Thanks for
the inspiration.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-01 11:01    [W:0.084 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site