[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130924180005.GA7148@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:00:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On 09/24, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 07:06:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > If gcc can actually do something wrong, then I suspect this barrier()
> > should be unconditional.
>
> If you are saying that there should be a barrier() on all return paths
> from get_online_cpus(), I agree.
Paul, Peter, could you provide any (even completely artificial) example
to explain me why do we need this barrier() ? I am puzzled. And
preempt_enable() already has barrier...
get_online_cpus();
do_something();
Yes, we need to ensure gcc doesn't reorder this code so that
do_something() comes before get_online_cpus(). But it can't? At least
it should check current->cpuhp_ref != 0 first? And if it is non-zero
we do not really care, we are already in the critical section and
this ->cpuhp_ref has only meaning in put_online_cpus().
Confused...
Oleg.
--
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