[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180619143044.GB2512@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:30:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
pkondeti@...eaurora.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
edubezval@...il.com, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
currojerez@...eup.net, javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management
framework
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:21:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:16:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 02:38:45PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > But maybe I could use something simpler than a lock in this case ?
> > > Would WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE be enough to ensure that atomicity for
> > > example ?
> >
> > Yes, since its a single pointer, smp_store_release() + READ_ONCE()
> > should be sufficient (these are the foundations of RCU).
>
> Note that per_cpu()/this_cpu_read() and friends should imply READ_ONCE().
Mark reminded me that per_cpu() does not in fact imply that, but
READ_ONCE(per_cpu()) should work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists