630 lines
21 KiB
Plaintext
Executable File
630 lines
21 KiB
Plaintext
Executable File
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 { int counter; } atomic_t;
|
|
|
|
Historically, counter has been declared volatile. This is now discouraged.
|
|
See Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt for the complete rationale.
|
|
|
|
local_t is very similar to atomic_t. If the counter is per CPU and only
|
|
updated by one CPU, local_t is probably more appropriate. Please see
|
|
Documentation/local_ops.txt for the semantics of local_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 initializer is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations
|
|
are guaranteed to be correct reflecting the initialized value if the
|
|
initializer is used before runtime. If the initializer is used at runtime, a
|
|
proper implicit or explicit read memory barrier is needed before reading the
|
|
value with atomic_read from another thread.
|
|
|
|
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);
|
|
|
|
The setting is atomic in that the return values of the atomic operations by
|
|
all threads are guaranteed to be correct reflecting either the value that has
|
|
been set with this operation or set with another operation. A proper implicit
|
|
or explicit memory barrier is needed before the value set with the operation
|
|
is guaranteed to be readable with atomic_read from another thread.
|
|
|
|
Next, we have:
|
|
|
|
#define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter)
|
|
|
|
which simply reads the counter value currently visible to the calling thread.
|
|
The read is atomic in that the return value is guaranteed to be one of the
|
|
values initialized or modified with the interface operations if a proper
|
|
implicit or explicit memory barrier is used after possible runtime
|
|
initialization by any other thread and the value is modified only with the
|
|
interface operations. atomic_read does not guarantee that the runtime
|
|
initialization by any other thread is visible yet, so the user of the
|
|
interface must take care of that with a proper implicit or explicit memory
|
|
barrier.
|
|
|
|
*** WARNING: atomic_read() and atomic_set() DO NOT IMPLY BARRIERS! ***
|
|
|
|
Some architectures may choose to use the volatile keyword, barriers, or inline
|
|
assembly to guarantee some degree of immediacy for atomic_read() and
|
|
atomic_set(). This is not uniformly guaranteed, and may change in the future,
|
|
so all users of atomic_t should treat atomic_read() and atomic_set() as simple
|
|
C statements that may be reordered or optimized away entirely by the compiler
|
|
or processor, and explicitly invoke the appropriate compiler and/or memory
|
|
barrier for each use case. Failure to do so will result in code that may
|
|
suddenly break when used with different architectures or compiler
|
|
optimizations, or even changes in unrelated code which changes how the
|
|
compiler optimizes the section accessing atomic_t variables.
|
|
|
|
*** YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! ***
|
|
|
|
Properly aligned pointers, longs, ints, and chars (and unsigned
|
|
equivalents) may be atomically loaded from and stored to in the same
|
|
sense as described for atomic_read() and atomic_set(). The ACCESS_ONCE()
|
|
macro should be used to prevent the compiler from using optimizations
|
|
that might otherwise optimize accesses out of existence on the one hand,
|
|
or that might create unsolicited accesses on the other.
|
|
|
|
For example consider the following code:
|
|
|
|
while (a > 0)
|
|
do_something();
|
|
|
|
If the compiler can prove that do_something() does not store to the
|
|
variable a, then the compiler is within its rights transforming this to
|
|
the following:
|
|
|
|
tmp = a;
|
|
if (a > 0)
|
|
for (;;)
|
|
do_something();
|
|
|
|
If you don't want the compiler to do this (and you probably don't), then
|
|
you should use something like the following:
|
|
|
|
while (ACCESS_ONCE(a) < 0)
|
|
do_something();
|
|
|
|
Alternatively, you could place a barrier() call in the loop.
|
|
|
|
For another example, consider the following code:
|
|
|
|
tmp_a = a;
|
|
do_something_with(tmp_a);
|
|
do_something_else_with(tmp_a);
|
|
|
|
If the compiler can prove that do_something_with() does not store to the
|
|
variable a, then the compiler is within its rights to manufacture an
|
|
additional load as follows:
|
|
|
|
tmp_a = a;
|
|
do_something_with(tmp_a);
|
|
tmp_a = a;
|
|
do_something_else_with(tmp_a);
|
|
|
|
This could fatally confuse your code if it expected the same value
|
|
to be passed to do_something_with() and do_something_else_with().
|
|
|
|
The compiler would be likely to manufacture this additional load if
|
|
do_something_with() was an inline function that made very heavy use
|
|
of registers: reloading from variable a could save a flush to the
|
|
stack and later reload. To prevent the compiler from attacking your
|
|
code in this manner, write the following:
|
|
|
|
tmp_a = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
|
|
do_something_with(tmp_a);
|
|
do_something_else_with(tmp_a);
|
|
|
|
For a final example, consider the following code, assuming that the
|
|
variable a is set at boot time before the second CPU is brought online
|
|
and never changed later, so that memory barriers are not needed:
|
|
|
|
if (a)
|
|
b = 9;
|
|
else
|
|
b = 42;
|
|
|
|
The compiler is within its rights to manufacture an additional store
|
|
by transforming the above code into the following:
|
|
|
|
b = 42;
|
|
if (a)
|
|
b = 9;
|
|
|
|
This could come as a fatal surprise to other code running concurrently
|
|
that expected b to never have the value 42 if a was zero. To prevent
|
|
the compiler from doing this, write something like:
|
|
|
|
if (a)
|
|
ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 9;
|
|
else
|
|
ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 42;
|
|
|
|
Don't even -think- about doing this without proper use of memory barriers,
|
|
locks, or atomic operations if variable a can change at runtime!
|
|
|
|
*** WARNING: ACCESS_ONCE() DOES NOT IMPLY A BARRIER! ***
|
|
|
|
Now, we move onto the atomic operation interfaces typically implemented with
|
|
the help of assembly code.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Then:
|
|
|
|
int atomic_xchg(atomic_t *v, int new);
|
|
|
|
This performs an atomic exchange operation on the atomic variable v, setting
|
|
the given new value. It returns the old value that the atomic variable v had
|
|
just before the operation.
|
|
|
|
atomic_xchg requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
|
|
|
|
int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *v, int old, int new);
|
|
|
|
This performs an atomic compare exchange operation on the atomic value v,
|
|
with the given old and new values. Like all atomic_xxx operations,
|
|
atomic_cmpxchg will only satisfy its atomicity semantics as long as all
|
|
other accesses of *v are performed through atomic_xxx operations.
|
|
|
|
atomic_cmpxchg requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
|
|
|
|
The semantics for atomic_cmpxchg are the same as those defined for 'cas'
|
|
below.
|
|
|
|
Finally:
|
|
|
|
int atomic_add_unless(atomic_t *v, int a, int u);
|
|
|
|
If the atomic value v is not equal to u, this function adds a to v, and
|
|
returns non zero. If v is equal to u then it returns zero. This is done as
|
|
an atomic operation.
|
|
|
|
atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
|
|
unless it fails (returns 0).
|
|
|
|
atomic_inc_not_zero, equivalent to atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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(void);
|
|
void smp_mb__after_atomic(void);
|
|
|
|
For example, smp_mb__before_atomic() can be used like so:
|
|
|
|
obj->dead = 1;
|
|
smp_mb__before_atomic();
|
|
atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
|
|
|
|
It makes sure that all memory operations preceding the atomic_dec()
|
|
call are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic counter
|
|
operation. In the above example, it guarantees that the assignment of
|
|
"1" to obj->dead will be globally visible to other cpus before the
|
|
atomic counter decrement.
|
|
|
|
Without the explicit smp_mb__before_atomic() call, the
|
|
implementation could legally allow the atomic counter update visible
|
|
to other cpus before the "obj->dead = 1;" assignment.
|
|
|
|
A missing memory barrier in the cases where they are required by the
|
|
atomic_t implementation above can have disastrous results. Here is
|
|
an example, which follows a pattern occurring 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 guaranteed that no other entity can be accessing the object:
|
|
|
|
static void obj_list_add(struct obj *obj, struct list_head *head)
|
|
{
|
|
obj->active = 1;
|
|
list_add(&obj->list, head);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
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 its 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, volatile unsigned long *addr);
|
|
void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
|
|
void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile 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, 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);
|
|
|
|
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 guarantee 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 {set,clear}_bit() (which do
|
|
not return a value, and thus does not need to provide memory barrier
|
|
semantics), two interfaces are provided:
|
|
|
|
void smp_mb__before_atomic(void);
|
|
void smp_mb__after_atomic(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_atomic();
|
|
clear_bit( ... );
|
|
|
|
/* The clear_bit() will be visible before all
|
|
* subsequent memory operations.
|
|
*/
|
|
smp_mb__after_atomic();
|
|
|
|
There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release,
|
|
same as spinlocks). These operate in the same way as their non-_lock/unlock
|
|
postfixed variants, except that they are to provide acquire/release semantics,
|
|
respectively. This means they can be used for bit_spin_trylock and
|
|
bit_spin_unlock type operations without specifying any more barriers.
|
|
|
|
int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
|
|
void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
|
|
void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *addr);
|
|
|
|
The __clear_bit_unlock version is non-atomic, however it still implements
|
|
unlock barrier semantics. This can be useful if the lock itself is protecting
|
|
the other bits in the word.
|
|
|
|
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 guarantee 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.
|