Adding upstream version 6.1.76.upstream/6.1.76upstream

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

1 files changed, 367 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0f1ffa03d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
+
+On atomic types (atomic_t atomic64_t and atomic_long_t).
+
+The atomic type provides an interface to the architecture's means of atomic
+RMW operations between CPUs (atomic operations on MMIO are not supported and
+can lead to fatal traps on some platforms).
+
+API
+---
+
+The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
+brevity):
+
+Non-RMW ops:
+
+  atomic_read(), atomic_set()
+  atomic_read_acquire(), atomic_set_release()
+
+
+RMW atomic operations:
+
+Arithmetic:
+
+  atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}()
+  atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}_return{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
+  atomic_fetch_{add,sub,inc,dec}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
+
+
+Bitwise:
+
+  atomic_{and,or,xor,andnot}()
+  atomic_fetch_{and,or,xor,andnot}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
+
+
+Swap:
+
+  atomic_xchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
+  atomic_cmpxchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
+  atomic_try_cmpxchg{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()
+
+
+Reference count (but please see refcount_t):
+
+  atomic_add_unless(), atomic_inc_not_zero()
+  atomic_sub_and_test(), atomic_dec_and_test()
+
+
+Misc:
+
+  atomic_inc_and_test(), atomic_add_negative()
+  atomic_dec_unless_positive(), atomic_inc_unless_negative()
+
+
+Barriers:
+
+  smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
+
+
+TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
+-----
+
+While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64
+respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow
+(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like
+2s-complement.
+
+Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly
+unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
+
+There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for
+signed types.
+
+With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like
+P1236R1.
+
+
+SEMANTICS
+---------
+
+Non-RMW ops:
+
+The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically
+implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
+smp_store_release() respectively. Therefore, if you find yourself only using
+the Non-RMW operations of atomic_t, you do not in fact need atomic_t at all
+and are doing it wrong.
+
+A note for the implementation of atomic_set{}() is that it must not break the
+atomicity of the RMW ops. That is:
+
+  C Atomic-RMW-ops-are-atomic-WRT-atomic_set
+
+  {
+    atomic_t v = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
+  }
+
+  P0(atomic_t *v)
+  {
+    (void)atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0);
+  }
+
+  P1(atomic_t *v)
+  {
+    atomic_set(v, 0);
+  }
+
+  exists
+  (v=2)
+
+In this case we would expect the atomic_set() from CPU1 to either happen
+before the atomic_add_unless(), in which case that latter one would no-op, or
+_after_ in which case we'd overwrite its result. In no case is "2" a valid
+outcome.
+
+This is typically true on 'normal' platforms, where a regular competing STORE
+will invalidate a LL/SC or fail a CMPXCHG.
+
+The obvious case where this is not so is when we need to implement atomic ops
+with a lock:
+
+  CPU0						CPU1
+
+  atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0);
+    lock();
+    ret = READ_ONCE(v->counter); // == 1
+						atomic_set(v, 0);
+    if (ret != u)				  WRITE_ONCE(v->counter, 0);
+      WRITE_ONCE(v->counter, ret + 1);
+    unlock();
+
+the typical solution is to then implement atomic_set{}() with atomic_xchg().
+
+
+RMW ops:
+
+These come in various forms:
+
+ - plain operations without return value: atomic_{}()
+
+ - operations which return the modified value: atomic_{}_return()
+
+   these are limited to the arithmetic operations because those are
+   reversible. Bitops are irreversible and therefore the modified value
+   is of dubious utility.
+
+ - operations which return the original value: atomic_fetch_{}()
+
+ - swap operations: xchg(), cmpxchg() and try_cmpxchg()
+
+ - misc; the special purpose operations that are commonly used and would,
+   given the interface, normally be implemented using (try_)cmpxchg loops but
+   are time critical and can, (typically) on LL/SC architectures, be more
+   efficiently implemented.
+
+All these operations are SMP atomic; that is, the operations (for a single
+atomic variable) can be fully ordered and no intermediate state is lost or
+visible.
+
+
+ORDERING  (go read memory-barriers.txt first)
+--------
+
+The rule of thumb:
+
+ - non-RMW operations are unordered;
+
+ - RMW operations that have no return value are unordered;
+
+ - RMW operations that have a return value are fully ordered;
+
+ - RMW operations that are conditional are unordered on FAILURE,
+   otherwise the above rules apply.
+
+Except of course when an operation has an explicit ordering like:
+
+ {}_relaxed: unordered
+ {}_acquire: the R of the RMW (or atomic_read) is an ACQUIRE
+ {}_release: the W of the RMW (or atomic_set)  is a  RELEASE
+
+Where 'unordered' is against other memory locations. Address dependencies are
+not defeated.
+
+Fully ordered primitives are ordered against everything prior and everything
+subsequent. Therefore a fully ordered primitive is like having an smp_mb()
+before and an smp_mb() after the primitive.
+
+
+The barriers:
+
+  smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
+
+only apply to the RMW atomic ops and can be used to augment/upgrade the
+ordering inherent to the op. These barriers act almost like a full smp_mb():
+smp_mb__before_atomic() orders all earlier accesses against the RMW op
+itself and all accesses following it, and smp_mb__after_atomic() orders all
+later accesses against the RMW op and all accesses preceding it. However,
+accesses between the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() and the RMW op are not
+ordered, so it is advisable to place the barrier right next to the RMW atomic
+op whenever possible.
+
+These helper barriers exist because architectures have varying implicit
+ordering on their SMP atomic primitives. For example our TSO architectures
+provide full ordered atomics and these barriers are no-ops.
+
+NOTE: when the atomic RmW ops are fully ordered, they should also imply a
+compiler barrier.
+
+Thus:
+
+  atomic_fetch_add();
+
+is equivalent to:
+
+  smp_mb__before_atomic();
+  atomic_fetch_add_relaxed();
+  smp_mb__after_atomic();
+
+However the atomic_fetch_add() might be implemented more efficiently.
+
+Further, while something like:
+
+  smp_mb__before_atomic();
+  atomic_dec(&X);
+
+is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than
+a RELEASE because it orders preceding instructions against both the read
+and write parts of the atomic_dec(), and against all following instructions
+as well. Similarly, something like:
+
+  atomic_inc(&X);
+  smp_mb__after_atomic();
+
+is an ACQUIRE pattern (though very much not typical), but again the barrier is
+strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illustrated:
+
+  C Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-stronger-than-acquire
+
+  {
+  }
+
+  P0(int *x, atomic_t *y)
+  {
+    r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+    smp_rmb();
+    r1 = atomic_read(y);
+  }
+
+  P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
+  {
+    atomic_inc(y);
+    smp_mb__after_atomic();
+    WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+  }
+
+  exists
+  (0:r0=1 /\ 0:r1=0)
+
+This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() --
+(void)atomic_fetch_inc_acquire() for instance -- would allow the outcome,
+because it would not order the W part of the RMW against the following
+WRITE_ONCE.  Thus:
+
+  P0			P1
+
+			t = LL.acq *y (0)
+			t++;
+			*x = 1;
+  r0 = *x (1)
+  RMB
+  r1 = *y (0)
+			SC *y, t;
+
+is allowed.
+
+
+CMPXCHG vs TRY_CMPXCHG
+----------------------
+
+  int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new);
+  bool atomic_try_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int *oldp, int new);
+
+Both provide the same functionality, but try_cmpxchg() can lead to more
+compact code. The functions relate like:
+
+  bool atomic_try_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int *oldp, int new)
+  {
+    int ret, old = *oldp;
+    ret = atomic_cmpxchg(ptr, old, new);
+    if (ret != old)
+      *oldp = ret;
+    return ret == old;
+  }
+
+and:
+
+  int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new)
+  {
+    (void)atomic_try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old, new);
+    return old;
+  }
+
+Usage:
+
+  old = atomic_read(&v);			old = atomic_read(&v);
+  for (;;) {					do {
+    new = func(old);				  new = func(old);
+    tmp = atomic_cmpxchg(&v, old, new);		} while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&v, &old, new));
+    if (tmp == old)
+      break;
+    old = tmp;
+  }
+
+NB. try_cmpxchg() also generates better code on some platforms (notably x86)
+where the function more closely matches the hardware instruction.
+
+
+FORWARD PROGRESS
+----------------
+
+In general strong forward progress is expected of all unconditional atomic
+operations -- those in the Arithmetic and Bitwise classes and xchg(). However
+a fair amount of code also requires forward progress from the conditional
+atomic operations.
+
+Specifically 'simple' cmpxchg() loops are expected to not starve one another
+indefinitely. However, this is not evident on LL/SC architectures, because
+while an LL/SC architecure 'can/should/must' provide forward progress
+guarantees between competing LL/SC sections, such a guarantee does not
+transfer to cmpxchg() implemented using LL/SC. Consider:
+
+  old = atomic_read(&v);
+  do {
+    new = func(old);
+  } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&v, &old, new));
+
+which on LL/SC becomes something like:
+
+  old = atomic_read(&v);
+  do {
+    new = func(old);
+  } while (!({
+    volatile asm ("1: LL  %[oldval], %[v]\n"
+                  "   CMP %[oldval], %[old]\n"
+                  "   BNE 2f\n"
+                  "   SC  %[new], %[v]\n"
+                  "   BNE 1b\n"
+                  "2:\n"
+                  : [oldval] "=&r" (oldval), [v] "m" (v)
+		  : [old] "r" (old), [new] "r" (new)
+                  : "memory");
+    success = (oldval == old);
+    if (!success)
+      old = oldval;
+    success; }));
+
+However, even the forward branch from the failed compare can cause the LL/SC
+to fail on some architectures, let alone whatever the compiler makes of the C
+loop body. As a result there is no guarantee what so ever the cacheline
+containing @v will stay on the local CPU and progress is made.
+
+Even native CAS architectures can fail to provide forward progress for their
+primitive (See Sparc64 for an example).
+
+Such implementations are strongly encouraged to add exponential backoff loops
+to a failed CAS in order to ensure some progress. Affected architectures are
+also strongly encouraged to inspect/audit the atomic fallbacks, refcount_t and
+their locking primitives.