From 706eeb3e9c6f032f2d22a1c658624cfb6ace61d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:50:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/locking/atomic: Add documents for new atomic_t APIs Since we've vastly expanded the atomic_t interface in recent years the existing documentation is woefully out of date and people seem to get confused a bit. Start a new document to hopefully better explain the current state of affairs. The old atomic_ops.txt also covers bitmaps and a few more details so this is not a full replacement and we'll therefore keep that document around until such a time that we've managed to write more text to cover its entire. Also please, ReST people, go away. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Boqun Feng Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Randy Dunlap Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt | 66 ++++++++++ Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 200 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 96 ++------------ 3 files changed, 273 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt create mode 100644 Documentation/atomic_t.txt diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt b/Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..5550bfdcce5f --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ + +On atomic bitops. + + +While our bitmap_{}() functions are non-atomic, we have a number of operations +operating on single bits in a bitmap that are atomic. + + +API +--- + +The single bit operations are: + +Non-RMW ops: + + test_bit() + +RMW atomic operations without return value: + + {set,clear,change}_bit() + clear_bit_unlock() + +RMW atomic operations with return value: + + test_and_{set,clear,change}_bit() + test_and_set_bit_lock() + +Barriers: + + smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() + + +All RMW atomic operations have a '__' prefixed variant which is non-atomic. + + +SEMANTICS +--------- + +Non-atomic ops: + +In particular __clear_bit_unlock() suffers the same issue as atomic_set(), +which is why the generic version maps to clear_bit_unlock(), see atomic_t.txt. + + +RMW ops: + +The test_and_{}_bit() operations return the original value of the bit. + + +ORDERING +-------- + +Like with atomic_t, the rule of thumb is: + + - non-RMW operations are unordered; + + - RMW operations that have no return value are unordered; + + - RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered. + +Except for test_and_set_bit_lock() which has ACQUIRE semantics and +clear_bit_unlock() which has RELEASE semantics. + +Since a platform only has a single means of achieving atomic operations +the same barriers as for atomic_t are used, see atomic_t.txt. + diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..eee127115277 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ + +On atomic types (atomic_t atomic64_t and atomic_long_t). + +The atomic type provides an interface to the architecture's means of atomic +RMW operations between CPUs (atomic operations on MMIO are not supported and +can lead to fatal traps on some platforms). + +API +--- + +The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for +brevity): + +Non-RMW ops: + + atomic_read(), atomic_set() + atomic_read_acquire(), atomic_set_release() + + +RMW atomic operations: + +Arithmetic: + + atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}() + atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}_return{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}() + atomic_fetch_{add,sub,inc,dec}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}() + + +Bitwise: + + atomic_{and,or,xor,andnot}() + atomic_fetch_{and,or,xor,andnot}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}() + + +Swap: + + atomic_xchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}() + atomic_cmpxchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}() + atomic_try_cmpxchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}() + + +Reference count (but please see refcount_t): + + atomic_add_unless(), atomic_inc_not_zero() + atomic_sub_and_test(), atomic_dec_and_test() + + +Misc: + + atomic_inc_and_test(), atomic_add_negative() + atomic_dec_unless_positive(), atomic_inc_unless_negative() + + +Barriers: + + smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() + + + +SEMANTICS +--------- + +Non-RMW ops: + +The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically +implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and +smp_store_release() respectively. + +The one detail to this is that atomic_set{}() should be observable to the RMW +ops. That is: + + C atomic-set + + { + atomic_set(v, 1); + } + + P1(atomic_t *v) + { + atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0); + } + + P2(atomic_t *v) + { + atomic_set(v, 0); + } + + exists + (v=2) + +In this case we would expect the atomic_set() from CPU1 to either happen +before the atomic_add_unless(), in which case that latter one would no-op, or +_after_ in which case we'd overwrite its result. In no case is "2" a valid +outcome. + +This is typically true on 'normal' platforms, where a regular competing STORE +will invalidate a LL/SC or fail a CMPXCHG. + +The obvious case where this is not so is when we need to implement atomic ops +with a lock: + + CPU0 CPU1 + + atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0); + lock(); + ret = READ_ONCE(v->counter); // == 1 + atomic_set(v, 0); + if (ret != u) WRITE_ONCE(v->counter, 0); + WRITE_ONCE(v->counter, ret + 1); + unlock(); + +the typical solution is to then implement atomic_set{}() with atomic_xchg(). + + +RMW ops: + +These come in various forms: + + - plain operations without return value: atomic_{}() + + - operations which return the modified value: atomic_{}_return() + + these are limited to the arithmetic operations because those are + reversible. Bitops are irreversible and therefore the modified value + is of dubious utility. + + - operations which return the original value: atomic_fetch_{}() + + - swap operations: xchg(), cmpxchg() and try_cmpxchg() + + - misc; the special purpose operations that are commonly used and would, + given the interface, normally be implemented using (try_)cmpxchg loops but + are time critical and can, (typically) on LL/SC architectures, be more + efficiently implemented. + +All these operations are SMP atomic; that is, the operations (for a single +atomic variable) can be fully ordered and no intermediate state is lost or +visible. + + +ORDERING (go read memory-barriers.txt first) +-------- + +The rule of thumb: + + - non-RMW operations are unordered; + + - RMW operations that have no return value are unordered; + + - RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered; + + - RMW operations that are conditional are unordered on FAILURE, + otherwise the above rules apply. + +Except of course when an operation has an explicit ordering like: + + {}_relaxed: unordered + {}_acquire: the R of the RMW (or atomic_read) is an ACQUIRE + {}_release: the W of the RMW (or atomic_set) is a RELEASE + +Where 'unordered' is against other memory locations. Address dependencies are +not defeated. + +Fully ordered primitives are ordered against everything prior and everything +subsequent. Therefore a fully ordered primitive is like having an smp_mb() +before and an smp_mb() after the primitive. + + +The barriers: + + smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() + +only apply to the RMW ops and can be used to augment/upgrade the ordering +inherent to the used atomic op. These barriers provide a full smp_mb(). + +These helper barriers exist because architectures have varying implicit +ordering on their SMP atomic primitives. For example our TSO architectures +provide full ordered atomics and these barriers are no-ops. + +Thus: + + atomic_fetch_add(); + +is equivalent to: + + smp_mb__before_atomic(); + atomic_fetch_add_relaxed(); + smp_mb__after_atomic(); + +However the atomic_fetch_add() might be implemented more efficiently. + +Further, while something like: + + smp_mb__before_atomic(); + atomic_dec(&X); + +is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than +a RELEASE. Similarly for something like: + + diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt index c4ddfcd5ee32..9f34364922c8 100644 --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt @@ -498,11 +498,11 @@ And a couple of implicit varieties: This means that ACQUIRE acts as a minimal "acquire" operation and RELEASE acts as a minimal "release" operation. -A subset of the atomic operations described in core-api/atomic_ops.rst have -ACQUIRE and RELEASE variants in addition to fully-ordered and relaxed (no -barrier semantics) definitions. For compound atomics performing both a load -and a store, ACQUIRE semantics apply only to the load and RELEASE semantics -apply only to the store portion of the operation. +A subset of the atomic operations described in atomic_t.txt have ACQUIRE and +RELEASE variants in addition to fully-ordered and relaxed (no barrier +semantics) definitions. For compound atomics performing both a load and a +store, ACQUIRE semantics apply only to the load and RELEASE semantics apply +only to the store portion of the operation. Memory barriers are only required where there's a possibility of interaction between two CPUs or between a CPU and a device. If it can be guaranteed that @@ -1876,8 +1876,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions: This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set *before* the reference counter is decremented. - See Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst for more information. See the - "Atomic operations" subsection for information on where to use these. + See Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt for more information. (*) lockless_dereference(); @@ -2503,88 +2502,7 @@ operations are noted specially as some of them imply full memory barriers and some don't, but they're very heavily relied on as a group throughout the kernel. -Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and returns information -about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional general memory barrier -(smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation (with the exception of -explicit lock operations, described later). These include: - - xchg(); - atomic_xchg(); atomic_long_xchg(); - atomic_inc_return(); atomic_long_inc_return(); - atomic_dec_return(); atomic_long_dec_return(); - atomic_add_return(); atomic_long_add_return(); - atomic_sub_return(); atomic_long_sub_return(); - atomic_inc_and_test(); atomic_long_inc_and_test(); - atomic_dec_and_test(); atomic_long_dec_and_test(); - atomic_sub_and_test(); atomic_long_sub_and_test(); - atomic_add_negative(); atomic_long_add_negative(); - test_and_set_bit(); - test_and_clear_bit(); - test_and_change_bit(); - - /* when succeeds */ - cmpxchg(); - atomic_cmpxchg(); atomic_long_cmpxchg(); - atomic_add_unless(); atomic_long_add_unless(); - -These are used for such things as implementing ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class -operations and adjusting reference counters towards object destruction, and as -such the implicit memory barrier effects are necessary. - - -The following operations are potential problems as they do _not_ imply memory -barriers, but might be used for implementing such things as RELEASE-class -operations: - - atomic_set(); - set_bit(); - clear_bit(); - change_bit(); - -With these the appropriate explicit memory barrier should be used if necessary -(smp_mb__before_atomic() for instance). - - -The following also do _not_ imply memory barriers, and so may require explicit -memory barriers under some circumstances (smp_mb__before_atomic() for -instance): - - atomic_add(); - atomic_sub(); - atomic_inc(); - atomic_dec(); - -If they're used for statistics generation, then they probably don't need memory -barriers, unless there's a coupling between statistical data. - -If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime, -they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count -will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold -sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary. - -If they're used for constructing a lock of some description, then they probably -do need memory barriers as a lock primitive generally has to do things in a -specific order. - -Basically, each usage case has to be carefully considered as to whether memory -barriers are needed or not. - -The following operations are special locking primitives: - - test_and_set_bit_lock(); - clear_bit_unlock(); - __clear_bit_unlock(); - -These implement ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class operations. These should be -used in preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives, -because their implementations can be optimised on many architectures. - -[!] Note that special memory barrier primitives are available for these -situations because on some CPUs the atomic instructions used imply full memory -barriers, and so barrier instructions are superfluous in conjunction with them, -and in such cases the special barrier primitives will be no-ops. - -See Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst for more information. +See Documentation/atomic_t.txt for more information. ACCESSING DEVICES -- 2.20.1