[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150123200828.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:08:28 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer
stats
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:23:36AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 10:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:31:53PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > > +static void update_gt_cputime(struct thread_group_cputimer *a, struct task_cputime *b)
> > > {
> > > + if (b->utime > atomic64_read(&a->utime))
> > > + atomic64_set(&a->utime, b->utime);
> > >
> > > + if (b->stime > atomic64_read(&a->stime))
> > > + atomic64_set(&a->stime, b->stime);
> > >
> > > + if (b->sum_exec_runtime > atomic64_read(&a->sum_exec_runtime))
> > > + atomic64_set(&a->sum_exec_runtime, b->sum_exec_runtime);
> > > }
> >
> > See something like this is not safe against concurrent adds.
>
> How about something like:
>
> u64 a_utime, a_stime, a_sum_exec_runtime;
>
> retry_utime:
> a_utime = atomic64_read(&a->utime);
> if (b->utime > a_utime) {
> if (atomic64_cmpxchg(&a->utime, a_utime, b->utime) != a_utime)
> goto retry_utime;
> }
>
> retry_stime:
> a_stime = atomic64_read(&a->stime);
> if (b->stime > a_stime) {
> if (atomic64_cmpxchg(&a->stime, a_stime, b->stime) != a_stime)
> goto retry_stime;
> }
>
> retry_sum_exec_runtime:
> a_sum_exec_runtime = atomic64_read(&a->sum_exec_runtime);
> if (b->sum_exec_runtime > a_sum_exec_runtime) {
> if (atomic64_cmpxchg(&a->sum_exec_runtime, a_sum_exec_runtime,
> b->sum_exec_runtime) != a_sum_exec_runtime)
> goto retry_sum_exec_runtime;
> }
Disgusting, at least use an inline or macro to avoid repeating it :-)
Also, does anyone care about performance on 32bit systems? There's a few
where atomic64 is abysmal.
--
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