[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603150259.GV30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:02:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] nohz: Use IPI implicit full barrier against
rq->nr_running r/w
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:40:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> A full dynticks CPU is allowed to stop its tick when a single task runs.
> Meanwhile when a new task gets enqueued, the CPU must be notified so that
> it can restart its tick to maintain local fairness and other accounting
> details.
>
> This notification is performed by way of an IPI. Then when the target
> receives the IPI, we expect it to see the new value of rq->nr_running.
>
> Hence the following ordering scenario:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
>
> write rq->running get IPI
> smp_wmb() smp_rmb()
> send IPI read rq->nr_running
>
> But Paul Mckenney says that nowadays IPIs imply a full barrier on
> all architectures. So we can safely remove this pair and rely on the
> implicit barriers that come along IPI send/receive. Lets
> just comment on this new assumption.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists