[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18900.33346.375497.2714@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:15:46 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] perf_counter: fix update_userpage()
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> > That means that we don't need any CPU memory barriers on either side.
> > All the kernel needs to do is to increment `lock' when it updates
> > things, and the user side can be:
> >
> > do {
> > seq = pc->lock;
> > index = pc->index;
> > offset = pc->offset;
> > barrier();
> > } while (pc->lock != seq);
> >
> > and all that's needed is a compiler barrier to stop the compiler from
> > optimizing too much.
>
> Can this work at all?
>
> I mean, user-space could get preempted/rescheduled after we read the
> mmap() data using that seqlock and before we actually did the read-pmc
> bit.
>
> In that case, the counter can have changed underneath us and we're
> reading rubbish.
Good point. This should work, though:
do {
seq = pc->lock;
barrier();
value = read_pmc(pc->index) + pc->offset;
barrier();
} while (pc->lock != seq);
return value;
No?
Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists