linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzNSZCKnuEm+CDWUN2G4bfrN+HafX8r13NcfT2tJ4h-jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:27:29 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like xadd() is x86-specific, but this is common code.  One
> approach would be to do xadd() for other arches, another approach
> would be to make .rw be an atomic_t rather than a u32.  Making it
> be atomic_t is probably easiest.  (The cmpxchg()s would then need
> to be atomic_cmpxchg().)

Note that "xadd()" has different semantics from "atomic_add_return()".

xadd() returns the original value, while atomic_add_return() returns
the result of the addition.

In this case, we seem to want the xadd() semantics. I guess we can use
"atomic_add_return(val,&atomic)-val" and just assume that the compiler
gets it right (with the addition and the subtraction cancelling out).
Or maybe we should have a "atomic_add_return_original()" with xadd
semantics?

               Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/