Re: +atomic-improve-atomic_inc_unless_negative-atomic_dec_unless_positive.patch added to -mm tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 07:30:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 07:34:32PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > 2013/3/15 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >
> > > > My point was: should we fix atomic_add_unless() then? If not, why
> > > > should atomic_add_unless_negative() differ?
> > >
> > > They shouldn't differ I guess.
> >
> > Completely agreed.  It is not like memory ordering is simple, so we should
> > keep the rules simple.
> 
> It is hardly possible to argue with this ;)
> 
> > The rule is that if an atomic primitive returns non-void, then there is
> > a full memory barrier before and after.
> 
> This case is documented...
> 
> > This applies to primitives
> > returning boolean as well, with atomic_dec_and_test() setting this
> > precedent from what I can see.
> 
> I don't think this is the "fair" comparison. Unlike atomic_add_unless(),
> atomic_dec_and_test() always changes the memory even if it "fails".
> 
> If atomic_add_unless() returns 0, nothing was changed and if we add
> the barrier it is not clear what it should be paired with.
> 
> But OK. I have to agree that "keep the rules simple" makes sense, so
> we should change atomic_add_unless() as well.

Agreed!

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/