1 files changed, 456 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt b/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8eedaa24f5e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,456 @@
+                Semantics and Behavior of Atomic and
+                         Bitmask Operations
+
+                          David S. Miller        
+
+        This document is intended to serve as a guide to Linux port
+maintainers on how to implement atomic counter, bitops, and spinlock
+interfaces properly.
+
+        The atomic_t type should be defined as a signed integer.
+Also, it should be made opaque such that any kind of cast to a normal
+C integer type will fail.  Something like the following should
+suffice:
+
+        typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
+
+        The first operations to implement for atomic_t's are the
+initializers and plain reads.
+
+        #define ATOMIC_INIT(i)          { (i) }
+        #define atomic_set(v, i)        ((v)->counter = (i))
+
+The first macro is used in definitions, such as:
+
+static atomic_t my_counter = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
+
+The second interface can be used at runtime, as in:
+
+        struct foo { atomic_t counter; };
+        ...
+
+        struct foo *k;
+
+        k = kmalloc(sizeof(*k), GFP_KERNEL);
+        if (!k)
+                return -ENOMEM;
+        atomic_set(&k->counter, 0);
+
+Next, we have:
+
+        #define atomic_read(v)  ((v)->counter)
+
+which simply reads the current value of the counter.
+
+Now, we move onto the actual atomic operation interfaces.
+
+        void atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v);
+        void atomic_sub(int i, atomic_t *v);
+        void atomic_inc(atomic_t *v);
+        void atomic_dec(atomic_t *v);
+
+These four routines add and subtract integral values to/from the given
+atomic_t value.  The first two routines pass explicit integers by
+which to make the adjustment, whereas the latter two use an implicit
+adjustment value of "1".
+
+One very important aspect of these two routines is that they DO NOT
+require any explicit memory barriers.  They need only perform the
+atomic_t counter update in an SMP safe manner.
+
+Next, we have:
+
+        int atomic_inc_return(atomic_t *v);
+        int atomic_dec_return(atomic_t *v);
+
+These routines add 1 and subtract 1, respectively, from the given
+atomic_t and return the new counter value after the operation is
+performed.
+
+Unlike the above routines, it is required that explicit memory
+barriers are performed before and after the operation.  It must be
+done such that all memory operations before and after the atomic
+operation calls are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic
+operation itself.
+
+For example, it should behave as if a smp_mb() call existed both
+before and after the atomic operation.
+
+If the atomic instructions used in an implementation provide explicit
+memory barrier semantics which satisfy the above requirements, that is
+fine as well.
+
+Let's move on:
+
+        int atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v);
+        int atomic_sub_return(int i, atomic_t *v);
+
+These behave just like atomic_{inc,dec}_return() except that an
+explicit counter adjustment is given instead of the implicit "1".
+This means that like atomic_{inc,dec}_return(), the memory barrier
+semantics are required.
+
+Next:
+
+        int atomic_inc_and_test(atomic_t *v);
+        int atomic_dec_and_test(atomic_t *v);
+
+These two routines increment and decrement by 1, respectively, the
+given atomic counter.  They return a boolean indicating whether the
+resulting counter value was zero or not.
+
+It requires explicit memory barrier semantics around the operation as
+above.
+
+        int atomic_sub_and_test(int i, atomic_t *v);
+
+This is identical to atomic_dec_and_test() except that an explicit
+decrement is given instead of the implicit "1".  It requires explicit
+memory barrier semantics around the operation.
+
+        int atomic_add_negative(int i, atomic_t *v);
+
+The given increment is added to the given atomic counter value.  A
+boolean is return which indicates whether the resulting counter value
+is negative.  It requires explicit memory barrier semantics around the
+operation.
+
+If a caller requires memory barrier semantics around an atomic_t
+operation which does not return a value, a set of interfaces are
+defined which accomplish this:
+
+        void smp_mb__before_atomic_dec(void);
+        void smp_mb__after_atomic_dec(void);
+        void smp_mb__before_atomic_inc(void);
+        void smp_mb__after_atomic_dec(void);
+
+For example, smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() can be used like so:
+
+        obj->dead = 1;
+        smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
+        atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
+
+It makes sure that all memory operations preceeding the atomic_dec()
+call are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic counter
+operation.  In the above example, it guarentees that the assignment of
+"1" to obj->dead will be globally visible to other cpus before the
+atomic counter decrement.
+
+Without the explicitl smp_mb__before_atomic_dec() call, the
+implementation could legally allow the atomic counter update visible
+to other cpus before the "obj->dead = 1;" assignment.
+
+The other three interfaces listed are used to provide explicit
+ordering with respect to memory operations after an atomic_dec() call
+(smp_mb__after_atomic_dec()) and around atomic_inc() calls
+(smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic_inc()).
+
+A missing memory barrier in the cases where they are required by the
+atomic_t implementation above can have disasterous results.  Here is
+an example, which follows a pattern occuring frequently in the Linux
+kernel.  It is the use of atomic counters to implement reference
+counting, and it works such that once the counter falls to zero it can
+be guarenteed that no other entity can be accessing the object:
+
+static void obj_list_add(struct obj *obj)
+{
+        obj->active = 1;
+        list_add(&obj->list);
+}
+
+static void obj_list_del(struct obj *obj)
+{
+        list_del(&obj->list);
+        obj->active = 0;
+}
+
+static void obj_destroy(struct obj *obj)
+{
+        BUG_ON(obj->active);
+        kfree(obj);
+}
+
+struct obj *obj_list_peek(struct list_head *head)
+{
+        if (!list_empty(head)) {
+                struct obj *obj;
+
+                obj = list_entry(head->next, struct obj, list);
+                atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt);
+                return obj;
+        }
+        return NULL;
+}
+
+void obj_poke(void)
+{
+        struct obj *obj;
+
+        spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
+        obj = obj_list_peek(&global_list);
+        spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
+
+        if (obj) {
+                obj->ops->poke(obj);
+                if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
+                        obj_destroy(obj);
+        }
+}
+
+void obj_timeout(struct obj *obj)
+{
+        spin_lock(&global_list_lock);
+        obj_list_del(obj);
+        spin_unlock(&global_list_lock);
+
+        if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
+                obj_destroy(obj);
+}
+
+(This is a simplification of the ARP queue management in the
+ generic neighbour discover code of the networking.  Olaf Kirch
+ found a bug wrt. memory barriers in kfree_skb() that exposed
+ the atomic_t memory barrier requirements quite clearly.)
+
+Given the above scheme, it must be the case that the obj->active
+update done by the obj list deletion be visible to other processors
+before the atomic counter decrement is performed.
+
+Otherwise, the counter could fall to zero, yet obj->active would still
+be set, thus triggering the assertion in obj_destroy().  The error
+sequence looks like this:
+
+        cpu 0                           cpu 1
+        obj_poke()                      obj_timeout()
+        obj = obj_list_peek();
+        ... gains ref to obj, refcnt=2
+                                        obj_list_del(obj);
+                                        obj->active = 0 ...
+                                        ... visibility delayed ...
+                                        atomic_dec_and_test()
+                                        ... refcnt drops to 1 ...
+        atomic_dec_and_test()
+        ... refcount drops to 0 ...
+        obj_destroy()
+        BUG() triggers since obj->active
+        still seen as one
+                                        obj->active update visibility occurs
+
+With the memory barrier semantics required of the atomic_t operations
+which return values, the above sequence of memory visibility can never
+happen.  Specifically, in the above case the atomic_dec_and_test()
+counter decrement would not become globally visible until the
+obj->active update does.
+
+As a historical note, 32-bit Sparc used to only allow usage of
+24-bits of it's atomic_t type.  This was because it used 8 bits
+as a spinlock for SMP safety.  Sparc32 lacked a "compare and swap"
+type instruction.  However, 32-bit Sparc has since been moved over
+to a "hash table of spinlocks" scheme, that allows the full 32-bit
+counter to be realized.  Essentially, an array of spinlocks are
+indexed into based upon the address of the atomic_t being operated
+on, and that lock protects the atomic operation.  Parisc uses the
+same scheme.
+
+Another note is that the atomic_t operations returning values are
+extremely slow on an old 386.
+
+We will now cover the atomic bitmask operations.  You will find that
+their SMP and memory barrier semantics are similar in shape and scope
+to the atomic_t ops above.
+
+Native atomic bit operations are defined to operate on objects aligned
+to the size of an "unsigned long" C data type, and are least of that
+size.  The endianness of the bits within each "unsigned long" are the
+native endianness of the cpu.
+
+        void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatils unsigned long *addr);
+        void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatils unsigned long *addr);
+        void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatils unsigned long *addr);
+
+These routines set, clear, and change, respectively, the bit number
+indicated by "nr" on the bit mask pointed to by "ADDR".
+
+They must execute atomically, yet there are no implicit memory barrier
+semantics required of these interfaces.
+
+        int test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatils unsigned long *addr);
+        int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatils unsigned long *addr);
+        int test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatils unsigned long *addr);
+
+Like the above, except that these routines return a boolean which
+indicates whether the changed bit was set _BEFORE_ the atomic bit
+operation.
+
+WARNING! It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean,
+ie. "0" or "1".  Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by
+declaring the above to return "long" and just returning something like
+"old_val & mask" because that will not work.
+
+For one thing, this return value gets truncated to int in many code
+paths using these interfaces, so on 64-bit if the bit is set in the
+upper 32-bits then testers will never see that.
+
+One great example of where this problem crops up are the thread_info
+flag operations.  Routines such as test_and_set_ti_thread_flag() chop
+the return value into an int.  There are other places where things
+like this occur as well.
+
+These routines, like the atomic_t counter operations returning values,
+require explicit memory barrier semantics around their execution.  All
+memory operations before the atomic bit operation call must be made
+visible globally before the atomic bit operation is made visible.
+Likewise, the atomic bit operation must be visible globally before any
+subsequent memory operation is made visible.  For example:
+
+        obj->dead = 1;
+        if (test_and_set_bit(0, &obj->flags))
+                /* ... */;
+        obj->killed = 1;
+
+The implementation of test_and_set_bit() must guarentee that
+"obj->dead = 1;" is visible to cpus before the atomic memory operation
+done by test_and_set_bit() becomes visible.  Likewise, the atomic
+memory operation done by test_and_set_bit() must become visible before
+"obj->killed = 1;" is visible.
+
+Finally there is the basic operation:
+
+        int test_bit(unsigned long nr, __const__ volatile unsigned long *addr);
+
+Which returns a boolean indicating if bit "nr" is set in the bitmask
+pointed to by "addr".
+
+If explicit memory barriers are required around clear_bit() (which
+does not return a value, and thus does not need to provide memory
+barrier semantics), two interfaces are provided:
+
+        void smp_mb__before_clear_bit(void);
+        void smp_mb__after_clear_bit(void);
+
+They are used as follows, and are akin to their atomic_t operation
+brothers:
+
+        /* All memory operations before this call will
+         * be globally visible before the clear_bit().
+         */
+        smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
+        clear_bit( ... );
+
+        /* The clear_bit() will be visible before all
+         * subsequent memory operations.
+         */
+         smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+
+Finally, there are non-atomic versions of the bitmask operations
+provided.  They are used in contexts where some other higher-level SMP
+locking scheme is being used to protect the bitmask, and thus less
+expensive non-atomic operations may be used in the implementation.
+They have names similar to the above bitmask operation interfaces,
+except that two underscores are prefixed to the interface name.
+
+        void __set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
+        void __clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
+        void __change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
+        int __test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
+        int __test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
+        int __test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
+
+These non-atomic variants also do not require any special memory
+barrier semantics.
+
+The routines xchg() and cmpxchg() need the same exact memory barriers
+as the atomic and bit operations returning values.
+
+Spinlocks and rwlocks have memory barrier expectations as well.
+The rule to follow is simple:
+
+1) When acquiring a lock, the implementation must make it globally
+   visible before any subsequent memory operation.
+
+2) When releasing a lock, the implementation must make it such that
+   all previous memory operations are globally visible before the
+   lock release.
+
+Which finally brings us to _atomic_dec_and_lock().  There is an
+architecture-neutral version implemented in lib/dec_and_lock.c,
+but most platforms will wish to optimize this in assembler.
+
+        int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock);
+
+Atomically decrement the given counter, and if will drop to zero
+atomically acquire the given spinlock and perform the decrement
+of the counter to zero.  If it does not drop to zero, do nothing
+with the spinlock.
+
+It is actually pretty simple to get the memory barrier correct.
+Simply satisfy the spinlock grab requirements, which is make
+sure the spinlock operation is globally visible before any
+subsequent memory operation.
+
+We can demonstrate this operation more clearly if we define
+an abstract atomic operation:
+
+        long cas(long *mem, long old, long new);
+
+"cas" stands for "compare and swap".  It atomically:
+
+1) Compares "old" with the value currently at "mem".
+2) If they are equal, "new" is written to "mem".
+3) Regardless, the current value at "mem" is returned.
+
+As an example usage, here is what an atomic counter update
+might look like:
+
+void example_atomic_inc(long *counter)
+{
+        long old, new, ret;
+
+        while (1) {
+                old = *counter;
+                new = old + 1;
+
+                ret = cas(counter, old, new);
+                if (ret == old)
+                        break;
+        }
+}
+
+Let's use cas() in order to build a pseudo-C atomic_dec_and_lock():
+
+int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+        long old, new, ret;
+        int went_to_zero;
+
+        went_to_zero = 0;
+        while (1) {
+                old = atomic_read(atomic);
+                new = old - 1;
+                if (new == 0) {
+                        went_to_zero = 1;
+                        spin_lock(lock);
+                }
+                ret = cas(atomic, old, new);
+                if (ret == old)
+                        break;
+                if (went_to_zero) {
+                        spin_unlock(lock);
+                        went_to_zero = 0;
+                }
+        }
+
+        return went_to_zero;
+}
+
+Now, as far as memory barriers go, as long as spin_lock()
+strictly orders all subsequent memory operations (including
+the cas()) with respect to itself, things will be fine.
+
+Said another way, _atomic_dec_and_lock() must guarentee that
+a counter dropping to zero is never made visible before the
+spinlock being acquired.
+
+Note that this also means that for the case where the counter
+is not dropping to zero, there are no memory ordering
+requirements.