[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131029201546.GA4932@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:15:46 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc
On 10/29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -154,9 +175,11 @@ int perf_output_begin(struct perf_output
> > * Userspace could choose to issue a mb() before updating the
> > * tail pointer. So that all reads will be completed before the
> > * write is issued.
> > + *
> > + * See perf_output_put_handle().
> > */
> > tail = ACCESS_ONCE(rb->user_page->data_tail);
> > - smp_rmb();
> > + smp_mb();
> > offset = head = local_read(&rb->head);
> > head += size;
> > if (unlikely(!perf_output_space(rb, tail, offset, head)))
>
> That said; it would be very nice to be able to remove this barrier. This
> is in every event write path :/
Yes.. And I'm afraid very much that I simply confused you. Perhaps Victor
is right and we do not need this mb(). So I am waiting for the end of
this story too.
And btw I do not understand why we need it (or smp_rmb) right after
ACCESS_ONCE(data_tail).
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