1=================================== 2refcount_t API compared to atomic_t 3=================================== 4 5.. contents:: :local: 6 7Introduction 8============ 9 10The goal of refcount_t API is to provide a minimal API for implementing 11an object's reference counters. While a generic architecture-independent 12implementation from lib/refcount.c uses atomic operations underneath, 13there are a number of differences between some of the ``refcount_*()`` and 14``atomic_*()`` functions with regards to the memory ordering guarantees. 15This document outlines the differences and provides respective examples 16in order to help maintainers validate their code against the change in 17these memory ordering guarantees. 18 19The terms used through this document try to follow the formal LKMM defined in 20tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt. 21 22memory-barriers.txt and atomic_t.txt provide more background to the 23memory ordering in general and for atomic operations specifically. 24 25Relevant types of memory ordering 26================================= 27 28.. note:: The following section only covers some of the memory 29 ordering types that are relevant for the atomics and reference 30 counters and used through this document. For a much broader picture 31 please consult memory-barriers.txt document. 32 33In the absence of any memory ordering guarantees (i.e. fully unordered) 34atomics & refcounters only provide atomicity and 35program order (po) relation (on the same CPU). It guarantees that 36each ``atomic_*()`` and ``refcount_*()`` operation is atomic and instructions 37are executed in program order on a single CPU. 38This is implemented using READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() and 39compare-and-swap primitives. 40 41A strong (full) memory ordering guarantees that all prior loads and 42stores (all po-earlier instructions) on the same CPU are completed 43before any po-later instruction is executed on the same CPU. 44It also guarantees that all po-earlier stores on the same CPU 45and all propagated stores from other CPUs must propagate to all 46other CPUs before any po-later instruction is executed on the original 47CPU (A-cumulative property). This is implemented using smp_mb(). 48 49A RELEASE memory ordering guarantees that all prior loads and 50stores (all po-earlier instructions) on the same CPU are completed 51before the operation. It also guarantees that all po-earlier 52stores on the same CPU and all propagated stores from other CPUs 53must propagate to all other CPUs before the release operation 54(A-cumulative property). This is implemented using 55smp_store_release(). 56 57An ACQUIRE memory ordering guarantees that all post loads and 58stores (all po-later instructions) on the same CPU are 59completed after the acquire operation. It also guarantees that all 60po-later stores on the same CPU must propagate to all other CPUs 61after the acquire operation executes. This is implemented using 62smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(). 63 64A control dependency (on success) for refcounters guarantees that 65if a reference for an object was successfully obtained (reference 66counter increment or addition happened, function returned true), 67then further stores are ordered against this operation. 68Control dependency on stores are not implemented using any explicit 69barriers, but rely on CPU not to speculate on stores. This is only 70a single CPU relation and provides no guarantees for other CPUs. 71 72 73Comparison of functions 74======================= 75 76case 1) - non-"Read/Modify/Write" (RMW) ops 77------------------------------------------- 78 79Function changes: 80 81 * atomic_set() --> refcount_set() 82 * atomic_read() --> refcount_read() 83 84Memory ordering guarantee changes: 85 86 * none (both fully unordered) 87 88 89case 2) - increment-based ops that return no value 90-------------------------------------------------- 91 92Function changes: 93 94 * atomic_inc() --> refcount_inc() 95 * atomic_add() --> refcount_add() 96 97Memory ordering guarantee changes: 98 99 * none (both fully unordered) 100 101case 3) - decrement-based RMW ops that return no value 102------------------------------------------------------ 103 104Function changes: 105 106 * atomic_dec() --> refcount_dec() 107 108Memory ordering guarantee changes: 109 110 * fully unordered --> RELEASE ordering 111 112 113case 4) - increment-based RMW ops that return a value 114----------------------------------------------------- 115 116Function changes: 117 118 * atomic_inc_not_zero() --> refcount_inc_not_zero() 119 * no atomic counterpart --> refcount_add_not_zero() 120 121Memory ordering guarantees changes: 122 123 * fully ordered --> control dependency on success for stores 124 125.. note:: We really assume here that necessary ordering is provided as a 126 result of obtaining pointer to the object! 127 128 129case 5) - generic dec/sub decrement-based RMW ops that return a value 130--------------------------------------------------------------------- 131 132Function changes: 133 134 * atomic_dec_and_test() --> refcount_dec_and_test() 135 * atomic_sub_and_test() --> refcount_sub_and_test() 136 137Memory ordering guarantees changes: 138 139 * fully ordered --> RELEASE ordering + ACQUIRE ordering on success 140 141 142case 6) other decrement-based RMW ops that return a value 143--------------------------------------------------------- 144 145Function changes: 146 147 * no atomic counterpart --> refcount_dec_if_one() 148 * ``atomic_add_unless(&var, -1, 1)`` --> ``refcount_dec_not_one(&var)`` 149 150Memory ordering guarantees changes: 151 152 * fully ordered --> RELEASE ordering + control dependency 153 154.. note:: atomic_add_unless() only provides full order on success. 155 156 157case 7) - lock-based RMW 158------------------------ 159 160Function changes: 161 162 * atomic_dec_and_lock() --> refcount_dec_and_lock() 163 * atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock() --> refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock() 164 165Memory ordering guarantees changes: 166 167 * fully ordered --> RELEASE ordering + control dependency + hold 168 spin_lock() on success 169