Re: locking/atomic: Introduce atomic_try_cmpxchg()
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Fri Mar 24 2017 - 10:22:04 EST
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> The primitive has subtle difference with all other implementation that
> I know of, and can lead to very subtle bugs. Some time ago I've spent
> several days debugging a memory corruption caused by similar
> implementation. Consider a classical lock-free stack push:
>
> node->next = atomic_read(&head);
> do {
> } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&head, &node->next, node));
>
> This code is broken with the current implementation, the problem is
> with unconditional update of *__po here:
Indeed. I had only considered stack local variables when I wrote that.
> So I would suggest to change it to a safer and less surprising
> alternative:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> index fb961db51a2a..81fb985f51f4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> @@ -212,7 +212,8 @@ extern void __add_wrong_size(void)
> default: \
> __cmpxchg_wrong_size(); \
> } \
> - *_old = __old; \
> + if (!success) \
> + *_old = __old; \
> success; \
> })
I've no immediate objection, I'll double check what, if anything, it
does for code gen.
> diff --git a/include/linux/atomic.h b/include/linux/atomic.h
> index aae5953817d6..f8098157f7c8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/atomic.h
> +++ b/include/linux/atomic.h
> @@ -1023,8 +1023,11 @@ static inline int atomic_dec_if_positive(atomic_t *v)
> ({ \
> typeof(_po) __po = (_po); \
> typeof(*(_po)) __o = *__po; \
> - *__po = atomic64_cmpxchg##type((_p), __o, (_n)); \
> - (*__po == __o); \
> + typeof(*(_po)) __v = atomic64_cmpxchg##type((_p), __o, (_n)); \
> + if (__v == __o) \
> + return true; \
> + *__po = __v; \
> + return false; \
> })
Can you actually use return in statement-expressions?