From: Alex Bennée Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:15:17 +0000 (+0000) Subject: include/qemu/atomic.h: default to __atomic functions X-Git-Tag: TizenStudio_2.0_p2.4~27^2~6^2~8^2~202^2~28 X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=a0aa44b488b3601415d55041e4619aef5f3a4ba8;p=sdk%2Femulator%2Fqemu.git include/qemu/atomic.h: default to __atomic functions The __atomic primitives have been available since GCC 4.7 and provide a richer interface for describing memory ordering requirements. As a bonus by using the primitives instead of hand-rolled functions we can use tools such as the ThreadSanitizer which need the use of well defined APIs for its analysis. If we have __ATOMIC defines we exclusively use the __atomic primitives for all our atomic access. Otherwise we fall back to the mixture of __sync and hand-rolled barrier cases. Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée Message-Id: <1453976119-24372-4-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org> [Use __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST for atomic_mb_read/atomic_mb_set on !POWER. - Paolo] Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini --- diff --git a/include/qemu/atomic.h b/include/qemu/atomic.h index bd2c075..05b447c 100644 --- a/include/qemu/atomic.h +++ b/include/qemu/atomic.h @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. * + * See docs/atomics.txt for discussion about the guarantees each + * atomic primitive is meant to provide. */ #ifndef __QEMU_ATOMIC_H @@ -15,12 +17,130 @@ #include "qemu/compiler.h" -/* For C11 atomic ops */ /* Compiler barrier */ #define barrier() ({ asm volatile("" ::: "memory"); (void)0; }) -#ifndef __ATOMIC_RELAXED +#ifdef __ATOMIC_RELAXED +/* For C11 atomic ops */ + +/* Manual memory barriers + * + *__atomic_thread_fence does not include a compiler barrier; instead, + * the barrier is part of __atomic_load/__atomic_store's "volatile-like" + * semantics. If smp_wmb() is a no-op, absence of the barrier means that + * the compiler is free to reorder stores on each side of the barrier. + * Add one here, and similarly in smp_rmb() and smp_read_barrier_depends(). + */ + +#define smp_mb() ({ barrier(); __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); barrier(); }) +#define smp_wmb() ({ barrier(); __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE); barrier(); }) +#define smp_rmb() ({ barrier(); __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE); barrier(); }) + +#define smp_read_barrier_depends() ({ barrier(); __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_CONSUME); barrier(); }) + +/* Weak atomic operations prevent the compiler moving other + * loads/stores past the atomic operation load/store. However there is + * no explicit memory barrier for the processor. + */ +#define atomic_read(ptr) \ + ({ \ + typeof(*ptr) _val; \ + __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); \ + _val; \ + }) + +#define atomic_set(ptr, i) do { \ + typeof(*ptr) _val = (i); \ + __atomic_store(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); \ +} while(0) + +/* Atomic RCU operations imply weak memory barriers */ + +#define atomic_rcu_read(ptr) \ + ({ \ + typeof(*ptr) _val; \ + __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_CONSUME); \ + _val; \ + }) + +#define atomic_rcu_set(ptr, i) do { \ + typeof(*ptr) _val = (i); \ + __atomic_store(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELEASE); \ +} while(0) + +/* atomic_mb_read/set semantics map Java volatile variables. They are + * less expensive on some platforms (notably POWER & ARMv7) than fully + * sequentially consistent operations. + * + * As long as they are used as paired operations they are safe to + * use. See docs/atomic.txt for more discussion. + */ + +#if defined(_ARCH_PPC) +#define atomic_mb_read(ptr) \ + ({ \ + typeof(*ptr) _val; \ + __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); \ + smp_rmb(); \ + _val; \ + }) + +#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) do { \ + typeof(*ptr) _val = (i); \ + smp_wmb(); \ + __atomic_store(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); \ + smp_mb(); \ +} while(0) +#else +#define atomic_mb_read(ptr) \ + ({ \ + typeof(*ptr) _val; \ + __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); \ + _val; \ + }) + +#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) do { \ + typeof(*ptr) _val = (i); \ + __atomic_store(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); \ +} while(0) +#endif + + +/* All the remaining operations are fully sequentially consistent */ + +#define atomic_xchg(ptr, i) ({ \ + typeof(*ptr) _new = (i), _old; \ + __atomic_exchange(ptr, &_new, &_old, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); \ + _old; \ +}) + +/* Returns the eventual value, failed or not */ +#define atomic_cmpxchg(ptr, old, new) \ + ({ \ + typeof(*ptr) _old = (old), _new = (new); \ + __atomic_compare_exchange(ptr, &_old, &_new, false, \ + __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); \ + _old; \ + }) + +/* Provide shorter names for GCC atomic builtins, return old value */ +#define atomic_fetch_inc(ptr) __atomic_fetch_add(ptr, 1, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) +#define atomic_fetch_dec(ptr) __atomic_fetch_sub(ptr, 1, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) +#define atomic_fetch_add(ptr, n) __atomic_fetch_add(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) +#define atomic_fetch_sub(ptr, n) __atomic_fetch_sub(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) +#define atomic_fetch_and(ptr, n) __atomic_fetch_and(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) +#define atomic_fetch_or(ptr, n) __atomic_fetch_or(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) + +/* And even shorter names that return void. */ +#define atomic_inc(ptr) ((void) __atomic_fetch_add(ptr, 1, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)) +#define atomic_dec(ptr) ((void) __atomic_fetch_sub(ptr, 1, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)) +#define atomic_add(ptr, n) ((void) __atomic_fetch_add(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)) +#define atomic_sub(ptr, n) ((void) __atomic_fetch_sub(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)) +#define atomic_and(ptr, n) ((void) __atomic_fetch_and(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)) +#define atomic_or(ptr, n) ((void) __atomic_fetch_or(ptr, n, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)) + +#else /* __ATOMIC_RELAXED */ /* * We use GCC builtin if it's available, as that can use mfence on @@ -85,8 +205,6 @@ #endif /* _ARCH_PPC */ -#endif /* C11 atomics */ - /* * For (host) platforms we don't have explicit barrier definitions * for, we use the gcc __sync_synchronize() primitive to generate a @@ -98,42 +216,22 @@ #endif #ifndef smp_wmb -#ifdef __ATOMIC_RELEASE -/* __atomic_thread_fence does not include a compiler barrier; instead, - * the barrier is part of __atomic_load/__atomic_store's "volatile-like" - * semantics. If smp_wmb() is a no-op, absence of the barrier means that - * the compiler is free to reorder stores on each side of the barrier. - * Add one here, and similarly in smp_rmb() and smp_read_barrier_depends(). - */ -#define smp_wmb() ({ barrier(); __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE); barrier(); }) -#else #define smp_wmb() __sync_synchronize() #endif -#endif #ifndef smp_rmb -#ifdef __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE -#define smp_rmb() ({ barrier(); __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE); barrier(); }) -#else #define smp_rmb() __sync_synchronize() #endif -#endif #ifndef smp_read_barrier_depends -#ifdef __ATOMIC_CONSUME -#define smp_read_barrier_depends() ({ barrier(); __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_CONSUME); barrier(); }) -#else #define smp_read_barrier_depends() barrier() #endif -#endif -#ifndef atomic_read +/* These will only be atomic if the processor does the fetch or store + * in a single issue memory operation + */ #define atomic_read(ptr) (*(__typeof__(*ptr) volatile*) (ptr)) -#endif - -#ifndef atomic_set #define atomic_set(ptr, i) ((*(__typeof__(*ptr) volatile*) (ptr)) = (i)) -#endif /** * atomic_rcu_read - reads a RCU-protected pointer to a local variable @@ -146,30 +244,18 @@ * Inserts memory barriers on architectures that require them (currently only * Alpha) and documents which pointers are protected by RCU. * - * Unless the __ATOMIC_CONSUME memory order is available, atomic_rcu_read also - * includes a compiler barrier to ensure that value-speculative optimizations - * (e.g. VSS: Value Speculation Scheduling) does not perform the data read - * before the pointer read by speculating the value of the pointer. On new - * enough compilers, atomic_load takes care of such concern about - * dependency-breaking optimizations. + * atomic_rcu_read also includes a compiler barrier to ensure that + * value-speculative optimizations (e.g. VSS: Value Speculation + * Scheduling) does not perform the data read before the pointer read + * by speculating the value of the pointer. * * Should match atomic_rcu_set(), atomic_xchg(), atomic_cmpxchg(). */ -#ifndef atomic_rcu_read -#ifdef __ATOMIC_CONSUME -#define atomic_rcu_read(ptr) ({ \ - typeof(*ptr) _val; \ - __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_CONSUME); \ - _val; \ -}) -#else #define atomic_rcu_read(ptr) ({ \ typeof(*ptr) _val = atomic_read(ptr); \ smp_read_barrier_depends(); \ _val; \ }) -#endif -#endif /** * atomic_rcu_set - assigns (publicizes) a pointer to a new data structure @@ -182,19 +268,10 @@ * * Should match atomic_rcu_read(). */ -#ifndef atomic_rcu_set -#ifdef __ATOMIC_RELEASE -#define atomic_rcu_set(ptr, i) do { \ - typeof(*ptr) _val = (i); \ - __atomic_store(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELEASE); \ -} while(0) -#else #define atomic_rcu_set(ptr, i) do { \ smp_wmb(); \ atomic_set(ptr, i); \ } while (0) -#endif -#endif /* These have the same semantics as Java volatile variables. * See http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/jmm/cookbook.html: @@ -218,13 +295,11 @@ * (see docs/atomics.txt), and I'm not sure that __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL is enough. * Just always use the barriers manually by the rules above. */ -#ifndef atomic_mb_read #define atomic_mb_read(ptr) ({ \ typeof(*ptr) _val = atomic_read(ptr); \ smp_rmb(); \ _val; \ }) -#endif #ifndef atomic_mb_set #define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) do { \ @@ -237,12 +312,6 @@ #ifndef atomic_xchg #if defined(__clang__) #define atomic_xchg(ptr, i) __sync_swap(ptr, i) -#elif defined(__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) -#define atomic_xchg(ptr, i) ({ \ - typeof(*ptr) _new = (i), _old; \ - __atomic_exchange(ptr, &_new, &_old, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); \ - _old; \ -}) #else /* __sync_lock_test_and_set() is documented to be an acquire barrier only. */ #define atomic_xchg(ptr, i) (smp_mb(), __sync_lock_test_and_set(ptr, i)) @@ -266,4 +335,5 @@ #define atomic_and(ptr, n) ((void) __sync_fetch_and_and(ptr, n)) #define atomic_or(ptr, n) ((void) __sync_fetch_and_or(ptr, n)) -#endif +#endif /* __ATOMIC_RELAXED */ +#endif /* __QEMU_ATOMIC_H */