[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161121083822.GF5227@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:38:22 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"dave@...gbits.org" <dave@...gbits.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount_t
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:48:26AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > It also fails to decrement in the underflow case (which is fine, but not
> > > obvious from the comment). Same thing below.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe a table in the comment like the following helps?
> >
> > /*
> > * T: return true, F: return fasle
> > * W: trigger WARNING
> > * N: no effect
> > *
> > * | value before ops |
> > * | 0 | 1 | UINT_MAX - 1 | UINT_MAX |
> > * ---------------------+-------+-------+--------------+----------+
> > * inc() | W | | W | N |
> > * inc_not_zero() | FN | T | WT | WTN |
> > * dec_and_test() | WFN | T | F | FN |
> > * dec_and_mutex_lock() | WFN | T | F | FN |
> > * dec_and_spin_lock() | WFN | T | F | FN |
> > */
>
> Yes!
>
> nit: s/fasle/false
>
> Also, I think we want to do a couple of other changes as well to make it more
> readable, extend the columns with 'normal' values (2 and UINT_MAX-2) and order the
> colums properly. I.e. something like:
>
> /*
> * The before/after outcome of various atomic ops:
> *
> * T: returns true
> * F: returns false
> * ----------------------------------
> * W: op triggers kernel WARNING
> * ----------------------------------
> * 0: no change to atomic var value
> * +: atomic var value increases by 1
> * -: atomic var value decreases by 1
> * ----------------------------------
> * -1: UINT_MAX
> * -2: UINT_MAX-1
> * -3: UINT_MAX-2
> *
> * ---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
> * value before: | -3 | -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
> * ---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
> * value+effect after: |
> * ---------------------+ | | | | | |
> * inc() | ..+ | W.+ | ..0 | W.+ | ..+ | ..+ |
> * inc_not_zero() | .T+ | WT+ | WT0 | .F0 | .T+ | .T+ |
> * dec_and_test() | .F- | .F- | .F0 | WF0 | .T- | .F- |
> * dec_and_mutex_lock() | .F- | .F- | .F0 | WF0 | .T- | .F- |
> * dec_and_spin_lock() | .F- | .F- | .F0 | WF0 | .T- | .F- |
> * ---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
> *
> * So for example: 'WT+' in the inc_not_zero() row and '-2' column
> * means that when the atomic_inc_not_zero() function is called
> * with an atomic var that has a value of UINT_MAX-1, then the
> * atomic var's value will increase to the maximum overflow value
> * of UINT_MAX and will produce a warning. The function returns
> * 'true'.
> */
>
> I think this table makes the overflow/underflow semantics pretty clear and also
> documents the regular behavior of these atomic ops pretty intuitively.
>
> Agreed?
>
Sure, this looks pretty great! Much more informative and readable than
my version ;-) Thank you.
Regards,
Boqun
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists