Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] atomics: add acquire/release/relaxed variants of some atomic operations

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:21:06AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:14:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:04:34PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > This patch introduces three new ordering semantics for these operations:
> > > 
> > >   - *_relaxed: No ordering guarantees. This is similar to what we have
> > >                already for the non-return atomics (e.g. atomic_add).
> > > 
> > >   - *_acquire: ACQUIRE semantics, similar to smp_load_acquire.
> > > 
> > >   - *_release: RELEASE semantics, similar to smp_store_release.
> > 
> > Do we want to further specify that for the RmW operations the Read/load
> > will provide the acquire and the Write/store the release?
> 
> Yeah, that's not a bad idea, but if we add that then I probably need to
> re-iterate the cmpxchg strangeness since a failed cmpxchg_acquire would
> still not have barrier semantics with the current implementation even though
> it must have performed a Read/load access.

Something like below?

Will

--->8

diff --git a/include/linux/atomic.h b/include/linux/atomic.h
index 899b4035569e..d2515c05e7c8 100644
--- a/include/linux/atomic.h
+++ b/include/linux/atomic.h
@@ -14,6 +14,11 @@
  * - Release: Provides RELEASE semantics, _release suffix.
  * - Relaxed: No ordering guarantees, _relaxed suffix.
  *
+ * For compound atomics performing both a load and a store, ACQUIRE
+ * semantics apply only to the load and RELEASE semantics only to the
+ * store portion of the operation. Note that a failed cmpxchg_acquire
+ * does -not- imply any memory ordering constraints.
+ *
  * See Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for ACQUIRE/RELEASE definitions.
  */
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/