[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1429151341.7039.162.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:29:01 -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
On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 22:40 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> You are correct. Now I'm thinking that the WRITE_ONCE() is not needed,
> and just a:
>
> p->mm->numa_scan_seq = READ_ONCE(p->numa_scan_seq) + 1;
Just to confirm, is this a typo? Because there really is a numa_scan_seq
in the task_struct itself too :)
p->mm->numa_scan_seq is read in task_numa_placement() with
ACCESS_ONCE(), and so the benefit that I do see with it is that it makes
it consistent by doing the updates with ACCESS_ONCE too (for
documentation purposes).
If that's really the case:
WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, p->mm->numa_scan_seq + 1)
should be enough for that.
--
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