Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops
- From: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:32:36 +0200
- Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Lobakin, Alexandr" <alexandr.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>, Matt Turner <mattst88@xxxxxxxxx>, Brian Cain <bcain@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-hexagon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-hexagon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <22042c14bc6a437d9c6b235fbfa32c8a@intel.com>
- References: <20220610113427.908751-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> <20220610113427.908751-3-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> <YqNMO0ioGzJ1IkoA@smile.fi.intel.com> <22042c14bc6a437d9c6b235fbfa32c8a@intel.com>
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 18:02, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > +/**
> > > + * generic_test_bit - Determine whether a bit is set
> > > + * @nr: bit number to test
> > > + * @addr: Address to start counting from
> > > + */
> >
> > Shouldn't we add in this or in separate patch a big NOTE to explain that this
> > is actually atomic and must be kept as a such?
>
> "atomic" isn't really the right word. The volatile access makes sure that the
> compiler does the test at the point that the source code asked, and doesn't
> move it before/after other operations.
It's listed in Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt.
It is as "atomic" as READ_ONCE() or atomic_read() is. Though you are
right that the "atomicity" of reading one bit is almost a given,
because we can't really read half a bit.
The main thing is that the compiler keeps it "atomic" and e.g. doesn't
fuse the load with another or elide it completely, and then transforms
the code in concurrency-unfriendly ways.
Like READ_ONCE() and friends, test_bit(), unlike non-atomic bitops,
may also be used to dependency-order some subsequent marked (viz.
atomic) operations.
> But there is no such thing as an atomic test_bit() operation:
>
> if (test_bit(5, addr)) {
> /* some other CPU nukes bit 5 */
>
> /* I know it was set when I looked, but now, could be anything */
The operation itself is atomic, because reading half a bit is
impossible. Whether or not that bit is modified concurrently is a
different problem.
Thanks,
-- Marco
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]