About Kernel Documentation Linux Kernel Contact Linux Resources Linux Blog

Documentation / atomic_ops.txt




Custom Search

Based on kernel version 3.2. Page generated on 2012-01-05 23:28 EST.

1			Semantics and Behavior of Atomic and
2			         Bitmask Operations
3	
4				  David S. Miller	 
5	
6		This document is intended to serve as a guide to Linux port
7	maintainers on how to implement atomic counter, bitops, and spinlock
8	interfaces properly.
9	
10		The atomic_t type should be defined as a signed integer.
11	Also, it should be made opaque such that any kind of cast to a normal
12	C integer type will fail.  Something like the following should
13	suffice:
14	
15		typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
16	
17	Historically, counter has been declared volatile.  This is now discouraged.
18	See Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt for the complete rationale.
19	
20	local_t is very similar to atomic_t. If the counter is per CPU and only
21	updated by one CPU, local_t is probably more appropriate. Please see
22	Documentation/local_ops.txt for the semantics of local_t.
23	
24	The first operations to implement for atomic_t's are the initializers and
25	plain reads.
26	
27		#define ATOMIC_INIT(i)		{ (i) }
28		#define atomic_set(v, i)	((v)->counter = (i))
29	
30	The first macro is used in definitions, such as:
31	
32	static atomic_t my_counter = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
33	
34	The initializer is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations
35	are guaranteed to be correct reflecting the initialized value if the
36	initializer is used before runtime.  If the initializer is used at runtime, a
37	proper implicit or explicit read memory barrier is needed before reading the
38	value with atomic_read from another thread.
39	
40	The second interface can be used at runtime, as in:
41	
42		struct foo { atomic_t counter; };
43		...
44	
45		struct foo *k;
46	
47		k = kmalloc(sizeof(*k), GFP_KERNEL);
48		if (!k)
49			return -ENOMEM;
50		atomic_set(&k->counter, 0);
51	
52	The setting is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations by
53	all threads are guaranteed to be correct reflecting either the value that has
54	been set with this operation or set with another operation.  A proper implicit
55	or explicit memory barrier is needed before the value set with the operation
56	is guaranteed to be readable with atomic_read from another thread.
57	
58	Next, we have:
59	
60		#define atomic_read(v)	((v)->counter)
61	
62	which simply reads the counter value currently visible to the calling thread.
63	The read is atomic in that the return value is guaranteed to be one of the
64	values initialized or modified with the interface operations if a proper
65	implicit or explicit memory barrier is used after possible runtime
66	initialization by any other thread and the value is modified only with the
67	interface operations.  atomic_read does not guarantee that the runtime
68	initialization by any other thread is visible yet, so the user of the
69	interface must take care of that with a proper implicit or explicit memory
70	barrier.
71	
72	*** WARNING: atomic_read() and atomic_set() DO NOT IMPLY BARRIERS! ***
73	
74	Some architectures may choose to use the volatile keyword, barriers, or inline
75	assembly to guarantee some degree of immediacy for atomic_read() and
76	atomic_set().  This is not uniformly guaranteed, and may change in the future,
77	so all users of atomic_t should treat atomic_read() and atomic_set() as simple
78	C statements that may be reordered or optimized away entirely by the compiler
79	or processor, and explicitly invoke the appropriate compiler and/or memory
80	barrier for each use case.  Failure to do so will result in code that may
81	suddenly break when used with different architectures or compiler
82	optimizations, or even changes in unrelated code which changes how the
83	compiler optimizes the section accessing atomic_t variables.
84	
85	*** YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! ***
86	
87	Now, we move onto the atomic operation interfaces typically implemented with
88	the help of assembly code.
89	
90		void atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v);
91		void atomic_sub(int i, atomic_t *v);
92		void atomic_inc(atomic_t *v);
93		void atomic_dec(atomic_t *v);
94	
95	These four routines add and subtract integral values to/from the given
96	atomic_t value.  The first two routines pass explicit integers by
97	which to make the adjustment, whereas the latter two use an implicit
98	adjustment value of "1".
99	
100	One very important aspect of these two routines is that they DO NOT
101	require any explicit memory barriers.  They need only perform the
102	atomic_t counter update in an SMP safe manner.
103	
104	Next, we have:
105	
106		int atomic_inc_return(atomic_t *v);
107		int atomic_dec_return(atomic_t *v);
108	
109	These routines add 1 and subtract 1, respectively, from the given
110	atomic_t and return the new counter value after the operation is
111	performed.
112	
113	Unlike the above routines, it is required that explicit memory
114	barriers are performed before and after the operation.  It must be
115	done such that all memory operations before and after the atomic
116	operation calls are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic
117	operation itself.
118	
119	For example, it should behave as if a smp_mb() call existed both
120	before and after the atomic operation.
121	
122	If the atomic instructions used in an implementation provide explicit
123	memory barrier semantics which satisfy the above requirements, that is
124	fine as well.
125	
126	Let's move on:
127	
128		int atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v);
129		int atomic_sub_return(int i, atomic_t *v);
130	
131	These behave just like atomic_{inc,dec}_return() except that an
132	explicit counter adjustment is given instead of the implicit "1".
133	This means that like atomic_{inc,dec}_return(), the memory barrier
134	semantics are required.
135	
136	Next:
137	
138		int atomic_inc_and_test(atomic_t *v);
139		int atomic_dec_and_test(atomic_t *v);
140	
141	These two routines increment and decrement by 1, respectively, the
142	given atomic counter.  They return a boolean indicating whether the
143	resulting counter value was zero or not.
144	
145	It requires explicit memory barrier semantics around the operation as
146	above.
147	
148		int atomic_sub_and_test(int i, atomic_t *v);
149	
150	This is identical to atomic_dec_and_test() except that an explicit
151	decrement is given instead of the implicit "1".  It requires explicit
152	memory barrier semantics around the operation.
153	
154		int atomic_add_negative(int i, atomic_t *v);
155	
156	The given increment is added to the given atomic counter value.  A
157	boolean is return which indicates whether the resulting counter value
158	is negative.  It requires explicit memory barrier semantics around the
159	operation.
160	
161	Then:
162	
163		int atomic_xchg(atomic_t *v, int new);
164	
165	This performs an atomic exchange operation on the atomic variable v, setting
166	the given new value.  It returns the old value that the atomic variable v had
167	just before the operation.
168	
169		int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *v, int old, int new);
170	
171	This performs an atomic compare exchange operation on the atomic value v,
172	with the given old and new values. Like all atomic_xxx operations,
173	atomic_cmpxchg will only satisfy its atomicity semantics as long as all
174	other accesses of *v are performed through atomic_xxx operations.
175	
176	atomic_cmpxchg requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
177	
178	The semantics for atomic_cmpxchg are the same as those defined for 'cas'
179	below.
180	
181	Finally:
182	
183		int atomic_add_unless(atomic_t *v, int a, int u);
184	
185	If the atomic value v is not equal to u, this function adds a to v, and
186	returns non zero. If v is equal to u then it returns zero. This is done as
187	an atomic operation.
188	
189	atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
190	unless it fails (returns 0).
191	
192	atomic_inc_not_zero, equivalent to atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0)
193	
194	
195	If a caller requires memory barrier semantics around an atomic_t
196	operation which does not return a value, a set of interfaces are
197	defined which accomplish this:
198	
199		void smp_mb__before_atomic_dec(void);
200		void smp_mb__after_atomic_dec(void);
201		void smp_mb__before_atomic_inc(void);
202		void smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(void);
203	
204	For example, smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() can be used like so:
205	
206		obj->dead = 1;
207		smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
208		atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
209	
210	It makes sure that all memory operations preceding the atomic_dec()
211	call are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic counter
212	operation.  In the above example, it guarantees that the assignment of
213	"1" to obj->dead will be globally visible to other cpus before the
214	atomic counter decrement.
215	
216	Without the explicit smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() call, the
217	implementation could legally allow the atomic counter update visible
218	to other cpus before the "obj->dead = 1;" assignment.
219	
220	The other three interfaces listed are used to provide explicit
221	ordering with respect to memory operations after an atomic_dec() call
222	(smp_mb__after_atomic_dec()) and around atomic_inc() calls
223	(smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic_inc()).
224	
225	A missing memory barrier in the cases where they are required by the
226	atomic_t implementation above can have disastrous results.  Here is
227	an example, which follows a pattern occurring frequently in the Linux
228	kernel.  It is the use of atomic counters to implement reference
229	counting, and it works such that once the counter falls to zero it can
230	be guaranteed that no other entity can be accessing the object:
231	
232	static void obj_list_add(struct obj *obj, struct list_head *head)
233	{
234		obj->active = 1;
235		list_add(&obj->list, head);
236	}
237	
238	static void obj_list_del(struct obj *obj)
239	{
240		list_del(&obj->list);
241		obj->active = 0;
242	}
243	
244	static void obj_destroy(struct obj *obj)
245	{
246		BUG_ON(obj->active);
247		kfree(obj);
248	}
249	
250	struct obj *obj_list_peek(struct list_head *head)
251	{
252		if (!list_empty(head)) {
253			struct obj *obj;
254	
255			obj = list_entry(head->next, struct obj, list);
256			atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt);
257			return obj;
258		}
259		return NULL;
260	}
261	
262	void obj_poke(void)
263	{
264		struct obj *obj;
265	
266		spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
267		obj = obj_list_peek(&global_list);
268		spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
269	
270		if (obj) {
271			obj->ops->poke(obj);
272			if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
273				obj_destroy(obj);
274		}
275	}
276	
277	void obj_timeout(struct obj *obj)
278	{
279		spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
280		obj_list_del(obj);
281		spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
282	
283		if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
284			obj_destroy(obj);
285	}
286	
287	(This is a simplification of the ARP queue management in the
288	 generic neighbour discover code of the networking.  Olaf Kirch
289	 found a bug wrt. memory barriers in kfree_skb() that exposed
290	 the atomic_t memory barrier requirements quite clearly.)
291	
292	Given the above scheme, it must be the case that the obj->active
293	update done by the obj list deletion be visible to other processors
294	before the atomic counter decrement is performed.
295	
296	Otherwise, the counter could fall to zero, yet obj->active would still
297	be set, thus triggering the assertion in obj_destroy().  The error
298	sequence looks like this:
299	
300		cpu 0				cpu 1
301		obj_poke()			obj_timeout()
302		obj = obj_list_peek();
303		... gains ref to obj, refcnt=2
304						obj_list_del(obj);
305						obj->active = 0 ...
306						... visibility delayed ...
307						atomic_dec_and_test()
308						... refcnt drops to 1 ...
309		atomic_dec_and_test()
310		... refcount drops to 0 ...
311		obj_destroy()
312		BUG() triggers since obj->active
313		still seen as one
314						obj->active update visibility occurs
315	
316	With the memory barrier semantics required of the atomic_t operations
317	which return values, the above sequence of memory visibility can never
318	happen.  Specifically, in the above case the atomic_dec_and_test()
319	counter decrement would not become globally visible until the
320	obj->active update does.
321	
322	As a historical note, 32-bit Sparc used to only allow usage of
323	24-bits of its atomic_t type.  This was because it used 8 bits
324	as a spinlock for SMP safety.  Sparc32 lacked a "compare and swap"
325	type instruction.  However, 32-bit Sparc has since been moved over
326	to a "hash table of spinlocks" scheme, that allows the full 32-bit
327	counter to be realized.  Essentially, an array of spinlocks are
328	indexed into based upon the address of the atomic_t being operated
329	on, and that lock protects the atomic operation.  Parisc uses the
330	same scheme.
331	
332	Another note is that the atomic_t operations returning values are
333	extremely slow on an old 386.
334	
335	We will now cover the atomic bitmask operations.  You will find that
336	their SMP and memory barrier semantics are similar in shape and scope
337	to the atomic_t ops above.
338	
339	Native atomic bit operations are defined to operate on objects aligned
340	to the size of an "unsigned long" C data type, and are least of that
341	size.  The endianness of the bits within each "unsigned long" are the
342	native endianness of the cpu.
343	
344		void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
345		void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
346		void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
347	
348	These routines set, clear, and change, respectively, the bit number
349	indicated by "nr" on the bit mask pointed to by "ADDR".
350	
351	They must execute atomically, yet there are no implicit memory barrier
352	semantics required of these interfaces.
353	
354		int test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
355		int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
356		int test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
357	
358	Like the above, except that these routines return a boolean which
359	indicates whether the changed bit was set _BEFORE_ the atomic bit
360	operation.
361	
362	WARNING! It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean,
363	ie. "0" or "1".  Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by
364	declaring the above to return "long" and just returning something like
365	"old_val & mask" because that will not work.
366	
367	For one thing, this return value gets truncated to int in many code
368	paths using these interfaces, so on 64-bit if the bit is set in the
369	upper 32-bits then testers will never see that.
370	
371	One great example of where this problem crops up are the thread_info
372	flag operations.  Routines such as test_and_set_ti_thread_flag() chop
373	the return value into an int.  There are other places where things
374	like this occur as well.
375	
376	These routines, like the atomic_t counter operations returning values,
377	require explicit memory barrier semantics around their execution.  All
378	memory operations before the atomic bit operation call must be made
379	visible globally before the atomic bit operation is made visible.
380	Likewise, the atomic bit operation must be visible globally before any
381	subsequent memory operation is made visible.  For example:
382	
383		obj->dead = 1;
384		if (test_and_set_bit(0, &obj->flags))
385			/* ... */;
386		obj->killed = 1;
387	
388	The implementation of test_and_set_bit() must guarantee that
389	"obj->dead = 1;" is visible to cpus before the atomic memory operation
390	done by test_and_set_bit() becomes visible.  Likewise, the atomic
391	memory operation done by test_and_set_bit() must become visible before
392	"obj->killed = 1;" is visible.
393	
394	Finally there is the basic operation:
395	
396		int test_bit(unsigned long nr, __const__ volatile unsigned long *addr);
397	
398	Which returns a boolean indicating if bit "nr" is set in the bitmask
399	pointed to by "addr".
400	
401	If explicit memory barriers are required around clear_bit() (which
402	does not return a value, and thus does not need to provide memory
403	barrier semantics), two interfaces are provided:
404	
405		void smp_mb__before_clear_bit(void);
406		void smp_mb__after_clear_bit(void);
407	
408	They are used as follows, and are akin to their atomic_t operation
409	brothers:
410	
411		/* All memory operations before this call will
412		 * be globally visible before the clear_bit().
413		 */
414		smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
415		clear_bit( ... );
416	
417		/* The clear_bit() will be visible before all
418		 * subsequent memory operations.
419		 */
420		 smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
421	
422	There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release,
423	same as spinlocks). These operate in the same way as their non-_lock/unlock
424	postfixed variants, except that they are to provide acquire/release semantics,
425	respectively. This means they can be used for bit_spin_trylock and
426	bit_spin_unlock type operations without specifying any more barriers.
427	
428		int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
429		void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
430		void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
431	
432	The __clear_bit_unlock version is non-atomic, however it still implements
433	unlock barrier semantics. This can be useful if the lock itself is protecting
434	the other bits in the word.
435	
436	Finally, there are non-atomic versions of the bitmask operations
437	provided.  They are used in contexts where some other higher-level SMP
438	locking scheme is being used to protect the bitmask, and thus less
439	expensive non-atomic operations may be used in the implementation.
440	They have names similar to the above bitmask operation interfaces,
441	except that two underscores are prefixed to the interface name.
442	
443		void __set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
444		void __clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
445		void __change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
446		int __test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
447		int __test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
448		int __test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
449	
450	These non-atomic variants also do not require any special memory
451	barrier semantics.
452	
453	The routines xchg() and cmpxchg() need the same exact memory barriers
454	as the atomic and bit operations returning values.
455	
456	Spinlocks and rwlocks have memory barrier expectations as well.
457	The rule to follow is simple:
458	
459	1) When acquiring a lock, the implementation must make it globally
460	   visible before any subsequent memory operation.
461	
462	2) When releasing a lock, the implementation must make it such that
463	   all previous memory operations are globally visible before the
464	   lock release.
465	
466	Which finally brings us to _atomic_dec_and_lock().  There is an
467	architecture-neutral version implemented in lib/dec_and_lock.c,
468	but most platforms will wish to optimize this in assembler.
469	
470		int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock);
471	
472	Atomically decrement the given counter, and if will drop to zero
473	atomically acquire the given spinlock and perform the decrement
474	of the counter to zero.  If it does not drop to zero, do nothing
475	with the spinlock.
476	
477	It is actually pretty simple to get the memory barrier correct.
478	Simply satisfy the spinlock grab requirements, which is make
479	sure the spinlock operation is globally visible before any
480	subsequent memory operation.
481	
482	We can demonstrate this operation more clearly if we define
483	an abstract atomic operation:
484	
485		long cas(long *mem, long old, long new);
486	
487	"cas" stands for "compare and swap".  It atomically:
488	
489	1) Compares "old" with the value currently at "mem".
490	2) If they are equal, "new" is written to "mem".
491	3) Regardless, the current value at "mem" is returned.
492	
493	As an example usage, here is what an atomic counter update
494	might look like:
495	
496	void example_atomic_inc(long *counter)
497	{
498		long old, new, ret;
499	
500		while (1) {
501			old = *counter;
502			new = old + 1;
503	
504			ret = cas(counter, old, new);
505			if (ret == old)
506				break;
507		}
508	}
509	
510	Let's use cas() in order to build a pseudo-C atomic_dec_and_lock():
511	
512	int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock)
513	{
514		long old, new, ret;
515		int went_to_zero;
516	
517		went_to_zero = 0;
518		while (1) {
519			old = atomic_read(atomic);
520			new = old - 1;
521			if (new == 0) {
522				went_to_zero = 1;
523				spin_lock(lock);
524			}
525			ret = cas(atomic, old, new);
526			if (ret == old)
527				break;
528			if (went_to_zero) {
529				spin_unlock(lock);
530				went_to_zero = 0;
531			}
532		}
533	
534		return went_to_zero;
535	}
536	
537	Now, as far as memory barriers go, as long as spin_lock()
538	strictly orders all subsequent memory operations (including
539	the cas()) with respect to itself, things will be fine.
540	
541	Said another way, _atomic_dec_and_lock() must guarantee that
542	a counter dropping to zero is never made visible before the
543	spinlock being acquired.
544	
545	Note that this also means that for the case where the counter
546	is not dropping to zero, there are no memory ordering
547	requirements.
Hide Line Numbers
About Kernel Documentation Linux Kernel Contact Linux Resources Linux Blog

Information is copyright its respective author. All material is available from the Linux Kernel Source distributed under a GPL License. This page is provided as a free service by mjmwired.net.