Atomics and memory barriers

[Malte Vesper]

On a second thought:

Is it correct that atomic_set() without a writebarrier following it is 
still atomic (no torn writes), however not guaranteed to be visible to 
other threads?

On 26/03/15 17:47, Malte Vesper wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been reading up on atomics and struggle to grasp when exactly I 
> need explicit memory barriers.
>
> While the documentation (Documentat/atomic_ops.txt), talks about 
> operations needing explicit barriers both sides, I assume this is only 
> half true.
> If I for instance only want to use an atomic as a flag to show that 
> some operation is complete I reckon that a barrier before is sufficient.
>
> Furthermore I found the following lines:
> 288  <http://users.sosdg.org/%7Eqiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt#L288>  If a caller requires memory barrier semantics around an atomic_t
> 289  <http://users.sosdg.org/%7Eqiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt#L289>  operation which does not return a value, a set of interfaces are
> 290  <http://users.sosdg.org/%7Eqiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt#L290>  defined which accomplish this:
> 291  <http://users.sosdg.org/%7Eqiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt#L291>  
> 292  <http://users.sosdg.org/%7Eqiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt#L292>  	void smp_mb__before_atomic(void);
> 293  <http://users.sosdg.org/%7Eqiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt#L293>  	void smp_mb__after_atomic(void);
> note how it refers to "operation which does not return a value", why 
> can't I use these for atomic operations that do return a value?
> What should I use instead, normal barriers like mb?
>
> Please enlighten me
> Malte

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20150326/a9bea3d7/attachment.html