[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18900.35934.799877.893556@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:58:54 +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:
> > 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;
>
> I don't think you need the first barrier(), all you need to avoid is it
> reusing the first pc->lock read, so one should suffice.
I need it to make sure that the compiler doesn't put the load of
pc->index or pc->offset before the first load of pc->lock. The second
barrier is needed to make sure the compiler puts the second load of
pc->lock after the loads of pc->index and pc->offset. So I think I do
need to barrier()s (but only compiler barriers, not cpu memory
barriers).
> Also, you need to handle the !pc->index case.
Hmmm, yeah. I claim that read_pmc(0) always returns 0. :)
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