diff options
author | Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> | 2016-09-19 11:36:44 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> | 2016-10-24 15:27:15 +0200 |
commit | 803cf26a9e019b5d2256a8edeb22e3538c4f3261 (patch) | |
tree | aa9484da547aa37b2e345bd6b6a2d01621376d2a | |
parent | e11131b02584ddea93deef1caad8e4f945dd7340 (diff) |
atomic: base mb_read/mb_set on load-acquire and store-release
This introduces load-acquire and store-release operations in QEMU.
For now, just use them as an implementation detail of atomic_mb_read
and atomic_mb_set.
Since docs/atomics.txt documents that atomic_mb_read only synchronizes
with an atomic_mb_set of the same variable, we can use the new implementation
everywhere instead of seq-cst loads and stores.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
-rw-r--r-- | docs/atomics.txt | 5 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | include/qemu/atomic.h | 95 |
2 files changed, 36 insertions, 64 deletions
diff --git a/docs/atomics.txt b/docs/atomics.txt index c8e4cbec06..3ef5d85b1b 100644 --- a/docs/atomics.txt +++ b/docs/atomics.txt @@ -374,8 +374,9 @@ and memory barriers, and the equivalents in QEMU: note that smp_store_mb() is a little weaker than atomic_mb_set(). atomic_mb_read() compiles to the same instructions as Linux's smp_load_acquire(), but this should be treated as an implementation - detail. If required, QEMU might later add atomic_load_acquire() and - atomic_store_release() macros. + detail. QEMU does have atomic_load_acquire() and atomic_store_release() + macros, but for now they are only used within atomic.h. This may + change in the future. SOURCES diff --git a/include/qemu/atomic.h b/include/qemu/atomic.h index b108df0742..c09fce704f 100644 --- a/include/qemu/atomic.h +++ b/include/qemu/atomic.h @@ -135,44 +135,18 @@ __atomic_store_n(ptr, i, __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) \ +#define atomic_load_acquire(ptr) \ ({ \ QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*ptr) > sizeof(void *)); \ typeof_strip_qual(*ptr) _val; \ - __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); \ - smp_mb_acquire(); \ + __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE); \ _val; \ }) -#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) do { \ +#define atomic_store_release(ptr, i) do { \ QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*ptr) > sizeof(void *)); \ - smp_mb_release(); \ - __atomic_store_n(ptr, i, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); \ - smp_mb(); \ + __atomic_store_n(ptr, i, __ATOMIC_RELEASE); \ } while(0) -#else -#define atomic_mb_read(ptr) \ - ({ \ - QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*ptr) > sizeof(void *)); \ - typeof_strip_qual(*ptr) _val; \ - __atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); \ - _val; \ - }) - -#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) do { \ - QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*ptr) > sizeof(void *)); \ - __atomic_store_n(ptr, i, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); \ -} while(0) -#endif /* All the remaining operations are fully sequentially consistent */ @@ -248,11 +222,6 @@ */ #define atomic_xchg(ptr, i) (barrier(), __sync_lock_test_and_set(ptr, i)) -/* - * Load/store with Java volatile semantics. - */ -#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) ((void)atomic_xchg(ptr, i)) - #elif defined(_ARCH_PPC) /* @@ -343,41 +312,16 @@ atomic_set(ptr, i); \ } while (0) -/* These have the same semantics as Java volatile variables. - * See http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/jmm/cookbook.html: - * "1. Issue a StoreStore barrier (wmb) before each volatile store." - * 2. Issue a StoreLoad barrier after each volatile store. - * Note that you could instead issue one before each volatile load, but - * this would be slower for typical programs using volatiles in which - * reads greatly outnumber writes. Alternatively, if available, you - * can implement volatile store as an atomic instruction (for example - * XCHG on x86) and omit the barrier. This may be more efficient if - * atomic instructions are cheaper than StoreLoad barriers. - * 3. Issue LoadLoad and LoadStore barriers after each volatile load." - * - * If you prefer to think in terms of "pairing" of memory barriers, - * an atomic_mb_read pairs with an atomic_mb_set. - * - * And for the few ia64 lovers that exist, an atomic_mb_read is a ld.acq, - * while an atomic_mb_set is a st.rel followed by a memory barrier. - * - * These are a bit weaker than __atomic_load/store with __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST - * (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. - */ -#define atomic_mb_read(ptr) ({ \ +#define atomic_load_acquire(ptr) ({ \ typeof(*ptr) _val = atomic_read(ptr); \ smp_mb_acquire(); \ _val; \ }) -#ifndef atomic_mb_set -#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) do { \ +#define atomic_store_release(ptr, i) do { \ smp_mb_release(); \ atomic_set(ptr, i); \ - smp_mb(); \ } while (0) -#endif #ifndef atomic_xchg #if defined(__clang__) @@ -414,4 +358,31 @@ #define smp_rmb() smp_mb_acquire() #endif +/* This is more efficient than a store plus a fence. */ +#if !defined(__SANITIZE_THREAD__) +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__s390x__) +#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) ((void)atomic_xchg(ptr, i)) +#endif +#endif + +/* atomic_mb_read/set semantics map Java volatile variables. They are + * less expensive on some platforms (notably POWER) 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. + */ + +#ifndef atomic_mb_read +#define atomic_mb_read(ptr) \ + atomic_load_acquire(ptr) +#endif + +#ifndef atomic_mb_set +#define atomic_mb_set(ptr, i) do { \ + atomic_store_release(ptr, i); \ + smp_mb(); \ +} while(0) +#endif + #endif /* QEMU_ATOMIC_H */ |