Adding upstream version 4.19.249.upstream/4.19.249

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 150 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/refcount-vs-atomic.rst b/Documentation/core-api/refcount-vs-atomic.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..322851bad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/refcount-vs-atomic.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+===================================
+refcount_t API compared to atomic_t
+===================================
+
+.. contents:: :local:
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+The goal of refcount_t API is to provide a minimal API for implementing
+an object's reference counters. While a generic architecture-independent
+implementation from lib/refcount.c uses atomic operations underneath,
+there are a number of differences between some of the ``refcount_*()`` and
+``atomic_*()`` functions with regards to the memory ordering guarantees.
+This document outlines the differences and provides respective examples
+in order to help maintainers validate their code against the change in
+these memory ordering guarantees.
+
+The terms used through this document try to follow the formal LKMM defined in
+tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt.
+
+memory-barriers.txt and atomic_t.txt provide more background to the
+memory ordering in general and for atomic operations specifically.
+
+Relevant types of memory ordering
+=================================
+
+.. note:: The following section only covers some of the memory
+   ordering types that are relevant for the atomics and reference
+   counters and used through this document. For a much broader picture
+   please consult memory-barriers.txt document.
+
+In the absence of any memory ordering guarantees (i.e. fully unordered)
+atomics & refcounters only provide atomicity and
+program order (po) relation (on the same CPU). It guarantees that
+each ``atomic_*()`` and ``refcount_*()`` operation is atomic and instructions
+are executed in program order on a single CPU.
+This is implemented using :c:func:`READ_ONCE`/:c:func:`WRITE_ONCE` and
+compare-and-swap primitives.
+
+A strong (full) memory ordering guarantees that all prior loads and
+stores (all po-earlier instructions) on the same CPU are completed
+before any po-later instruction is executed on the same CPU.
+It also guarantees that all po-earlier stores on the same CPU
+and all propagated stores from other CPUs must propagate to all
+other CPUs before any po-later instruction is executed on the original
+CPU (A-cumulative property). This is implemented using :c:func:`smp_mb`.
+
+A RELEASE memory ordering guarantees that all prior loads and
+stores (all po-earlier instructions) on the same CPU are completed
+before the operation. It also guarantees that all po-earlier
+stores on the same CPU and all propagated stores from other CPUs
+must propagate to all other CPUs before the release operation
+(A-cumulative property). This is implemented using
+:c:func:`smp_store_release`.
+
+A control dependency (on success) for refcounters guarantees that
+if a reference for an object was successfully obtained (reference
+counter increment or addition happened, function returned true),
+then further stores are ordered against this operation.
+Control dependency on stores are not implemented using any explicit
+barriers, but rely on CPU not to speculate on stores. This is only
+a single CPU relation and provides no guarantees for other CPUs.
+
+
+Comparison of functions
+=======================
+
+case 1) - non-"Read/Modify/Write" (RMW) ops
+-------------------------------------------
+
+Function changes:
+
+ * :c:func:`atomic_set` --> :c:func:`refcount_set`
+ * :c:func:`atomic_read` --> :c:func:`refcount_read`
+
+Memory ordering guarantee changes:
+
+ * none (both fully unordered)
+
+
+case 2) - increment-based ops that return no value
+--------------------------------------------------
+
+Function changes:
+
+ * :c:func:`atomic_inc` --> :c:func:`refcount_inc`
+ * :c:func:`atomic_add` --> :c:func:`refcount_add`
+
+Memory ordering guarantee changes:
+
+ * none (both fully unordered)
+
+case 3) - decrement-based RMW ops that return no value
+------------------------------------------------------
+
+Function changes:
+
+ * :c:func:`atomic_dec` --> :c:func:`refcount_dec`
+
+Memory ordering guarantee changes:
+
+ * fully unordered --> RELEASE ordering
+
+
+case 4) - increment-based RMW ops that return a value
+-----------------------------------------------------
+
+Function changes:
+
+ * :c:func:`atomic_inc_not_zero` --> :c:func:`refcount_inc_not_zero`
+ * no atomic counterpart --> :c:func:`refcount_add_not_zero`
+
+Memory ordering guarantees changes:
+
+ * fully ordered --> control dependency on success for stores
+
+.. note:: We really assume here that necessary ordering is provided as a
+   result of obtaining pointer to the object!
+
+
+case 5) - decrement-based RMW ops that return a value
+-----------------------------------------------------
+
+Function changes:
+
+ * :c:func:`atomic_dec_and_test` --> :c:func:`refcount_dec_and_test`
+ * :c:func:`atomic_sub_and_test` --> :c:func:`refcount_sub_and_test`
+ * no atomic counterpart --> :c:func:`refcount_dec_if_one`
+ * ``atomic_add_unless(&var, -1, 1)`` --> ``refcount_dec_not_one(&var)``
+
+Memory ordering guarantees changes:
+
+ * fully ordered --> RELEASE ordering + control dependency
+
+.. note:: :c:func:`atomic_add_unless` only provides full order on success.
+
+
+case 6) - lock-based RMW
+------------------------
+
+Function changes:
+
+ * :c:func:`atomic_dec_and_lock` --> :c:func:`refcount_dec_and_lock`
+ * :c:func:`atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock` --> :c:func:`refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock`
+
+Memory ordering guarantees changes:
+
+ * fully ordered --> RELEASE ordering + control dependency + hold
+   :c:func:`spin_lock` on success