[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180607084251.rv2tg3kgz4aohlpd@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:12:51 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
"open list:POWER MANAGEMENT CORE" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle
injection framework
On 07-06-18, 10:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 10:18:27AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > So IIUC, neither atomic or WRITE|READ_ONCE are necessary in this code
> > because of the wake_up_process() barrier is enough, right ?
>
> I didn't look hard enough; if there ever is a time where the loads and
> stores happen concurrently, you need READ/WRITE_ONCE(). If there is no
> concurrency on the variables, you don't need anything.
>
> Neither atomic_read/set() nor REAd/WRITE_ONCE() will help with ordering,
> which is what the wake_up_process() would provide here, different things
> entirely.
Right and you still need the READ/WRITE_ONCE() thing as
idle_injection_set_duration() may run in parallel with the idle_injection_fn()
thread.
And I don't think the purpose of atomic_read/write was ever to take care of the
ordering issues in this code, it was always about parallel loads/stores.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists