Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] rust: sync: atomic: Add the framework of arithmetic operations
Boqun Feng <[email protected]> Fri, 11 Jul 2025 07:39:15 -0700
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.lkmm,org.kernel.vger.linux-arch,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.rust-for-linux |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:53:45AM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote: > On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 8:00 AM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote: > > One important set of atomic operations is the arithmetic operations, > > i.e. add(), sub(), fetch_add(), add_return(), etc. However it may not > > make senses for all the types that `AllowAtomic` to have arithmetic > > operations, for example a `Foo(u32)` may not have a reasonable add() or > > sub(), plus subword types (`u8` and `u16`) currently don't have > > atomic arithmetic operations even on C side and might not have them in > > the future in Rust (because they are usually suboptimal on a few > > architecures). Therefore add a subtrait of `AllowAtomic` describing > > which types have and can do atomic arithemtic operations. > > > > Trait `AllowAtomicArithmetic` has an associate type `Delta` instead of > > using `AllowAllowAtomic::Repr` because, a `Bar(u32)` (whose `Repr` is > > `i32`) may not wants an `add(&self, i32)`, but an `add(&self, u32)`. > > > > Only add() and fetch_add() are added. The rest will be added in the > > future. > > > > Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <[email protected]> > > --- > > rust/kernel/sync/atomic.rs | 18 +++++ > > rust/kernel/sync/atomic/generic.rs | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 126 insertions(+) > > I think it's better to name this trait `AtomicAdd` and make it generic: > > pub unsafe trait AtomicAdd<Rhs = Self>: AllowAtomic { > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Rhs) -> Self::Repr; > } > > `sub` and `fetch_sub` can be added using a similar trait. > Seems a good idea, I will see what I can do. Thanks! > The generic allows you to implement it multiple times with different > meanings, for example: > > pub struct Nanos(u64); > pub struct Micros(u64); > pub struct Millis(u64); > > impl AllowAtomic for Nanos { > type Repr = i64; > } > > impl AtomicAdd<Millis> for Nanos { > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Millis) -> i64 { > transmute(rhs.0 * 1000_000) We probably want to use `as` in real code? > } > } > > impl AtomicAdd<Micros> for Nanos { > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Micros) -> i64 { > transmute(rhs.0 * 1000) > } > } > > impl AtomicAdd<Nanos> for Nanos { > fn rhs_into_repr(rhs: Nanos) -> i64 { > transmute(rhs.0) > } > } > > For the safety requirement on the `AtomicAdd` trait, we might just > require bi-directional transmutability... Or can you imagine a case > where that is not guaranteed, but a weaker form is? I have a case that I don't think it's that useful, but it's similar to the `Micros` and `Millis` above, an `Even<T>` where `Even<i32>` is a `i32` but it's always an even number ;-) So transmute<i32, Even<i32>>() is not always sound. Maybe we could add a "TODO" in the safety section of `AtomicAdd`, and revisit this later? Like: /// (in # Safety) /// TODO: The safety requirement may be tightened to bi-directional /// transmutability. And maybe also add the `Even` example there? Thoughts? Regards, Boqun > > --- > Cheers, > Benno