Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:28:49 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc:     "paul.burton@mips.com" <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ralf@linux-mips.org" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
        "jlayton@kernel.org" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "anna.schumaker@netapp.com" <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
        "jhogan@kernel.org" <jhogan@kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "paulus@samba.org" <paulus@samba.org>,
        "mpe@ellerman.id.au" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] lib: Introduce generic __cmpxchg_u64() and use it
 where needed
Message-ID: <20181101152849.GC25346@roeck-us.net>
References: <1541015538-11382-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net>
 <20181031213240.zhh7dfcm47ucuyfl@pburton-laptop>
 <20181031220253.GA15505@roeck-us.net>
 <20181031233235.qbedw3pinxcuk7me@pburton-laptop>
 <291af20b-820e-e848-cf75-730024612117@roeck-us.net>
 <d7fe095d8d1f848b5742a5b3e8cce9f89e0c1c8d.camel@hammerspace.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d7fe095d8d1f848b5742a5b3e8cce9f89e0c1c8d.camel@hammerspace.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 06:30:08AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
[ ... ]
> > 
> > For my part I agree that this would be a much better solution. The
> > argument
> > that it is not always absolutely guaranteed that atomics don't wrap
> > doesn't
> > really hold for me because it looks like they all do. On top of that,
> > there
> > is an explicit atomic_dec_if_positive() and
> > atomic_fetch_add_unless(),
> > which to me strongly suggests that they _are_ supposed to wrap.
> > Given the cost of adding a comparison to each atomic operation to
> > prevent it from wrapping, anything else would not really make sense
> > to me.
> 
> That's a hypothesis, not a proven fact. There are architectures out
> there that do not wrap signed integers, hence my question.
> 

If what you say is correct, the kernel is in big trouble on those architectures.
atomic_inc_return() is used all over the place in the kernel with the assumption
that each returned value differs from the previous value (ie the value is used
as cookie, session ID, or for similar purposes).

Guenter