From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Xu, Yanfei" <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Document cmpxchg() vs try_cmpxchg()
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:07:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOMgPeMOmmiK3tXO@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YOMQYQr1loxIuZbU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 04:00:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> No, when try_cmpxchg() fails it will update oldp. This is the reason old
> is now a pointer too.
Since you're not the first person confused by this, does the below
clarify?
---
Subject: Documentation/atomic_t: Document cmpxchg() vs try_cmpxchg()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Mon Jul 5 17:00:24 CEST 2021
There seems to be a significant amount of confusion around the 'new'
try_cmpxchg(), despite this being more like the C11
atomic_compare_exchange_*() family. Add a few words of clarification
on how cmpxchg() and try_cmpxchg() relate to one another.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
--- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
+++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
@@ -271,3 +271,44 @@ because it would not order the W part of
SC *y, t;
is allowed.
+
+
+CMPXHG vs TRY_CMPXCHG
+---------------------
+
+ int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new);
+ bool atomic_try_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int *oldp, int new);
+
+Both provide the same functionality, but try_cmpxchg() can lead to more
+compact code. The functions relate like:
+
+ bool atomic_try_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int *oldp, int new)
+ {
+ int ret, old = *oldp;
+ ret = atomic_cmpxchg(ptr, old, new);
+ if (ret != old)
+ *oldp = ret;
+ return ret == old;
+ }
+
+and:
+
+ int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new)
+ {
+ (void)atomic_try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old, new);
+ return old;
+ }
+
+Usage:
+
+ old = atomic_read(&v); old = atomic_read(&v);
+ for (;;) { do {
+ new = func(old); new = func(old);
+ tmp = atomic_cmpxchg(&v, old, new); } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&v, &old, new));
+ if (tmp == old)
+ break;
+ old = tmp;
+ }
+
+NB. try_cmpxchg() also generates better code on some platforms (notably x86)
+where the function more closely matches the hardware instruction.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-05 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-30 15:35 [RFC][PATCH 0/4] locking/mutex: Some HANDOFF fixes Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-30 15:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/4] locking/mutex: Use try_cmpxchg() Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-05 11:59 ` Xu, Yanfei
2021-07-05 14:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-05 14:52 ` Xu, Yanfei
2021-07-05 15:07 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-07-05 15:21 ` [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Document cmpxchg() vs try_cmpxchg() Will Deacon
2021-07-05 15:25 ` Xu, Yanfei
2021-07-05 17:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-08 8:42 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-08 8:42 ` [tip: locking/core] locking/mutex: Use try_cmpxchg() tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-30 15:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/4] locking/mutex: Fix HANDOFF condition Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-08 8:42 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-30 15:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/4] locking/mutex: Introduce __mutex_trylock_or_handoff() Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-30 16:30 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-30 18:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-08 8:42 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-30 15:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/4] locking/mutex: Add MUTEX_WARN_ON Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-08 8:42 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-30 19:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/4] locking/mutex: Some HANDOFF fixes Waiman Long
2021-07-01 2:11 ` Xu, Yanfei
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YOMgPeMOmmiK3tXO@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yanfei.xu@windriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).