[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1429063953.7039.88.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:12:33 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
hideaki.kimura@...com, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, timer: Remove usages of ACCESS_ONCE in the
scheduler
Hi Steven,
On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 19:59 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:09:44 -0700
> Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
>
>
> > @@ -2088,7 +2088,7 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int mem_node, int pages, int flags)
> >
> > static void reset_ptenuma_scan(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > - ACCESS_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq)++;
> > + WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq) + 1);
>
> Is the READ_ONCE() inside the WRITE_ONCE() really necessary?
Yeah, I think so to be safe, otherwise, the access of
p->mm->numa_scan_seq in the 2nd parameter doesn't have the volatile
cast.
--
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