[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201116145309.GF3121378@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:53:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, keescook@...omium.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] seqnum_ops: Introduce Sequence Number Ops
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:46:03AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> +Increment interface
> +-------------------
> +
> +Increments sequence number and returns the new value. ::
> +
> + seqnum32_inc_return() --> (u32) atomic_inc_return(seqnum)
> + seqnum64_inc_return() --> (u64) atomic64_inc_return(seqnum)
Did you think about the ordering?
> +Fetch interface
> +---------------
> +
> +Fetched and returns current sequence number value. ::
> +
> + seqnum32_fetch() --> (u32) atomic_add_return(0, seqnum)
> + seqnum64_fetch() --> (u64) atomic64_add_return(0, seqnum)
That's horrible. Please explain how that is not broken garbage.
Per the fact that it is atomic, nothing prevents the counter being
incremented concurrently. There is no such thing as a 'current' sequence
number.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists