[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDm49JS7thuUn0--ocqpn2Du4qi8qsUeeHzGrAG_F2epw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:37:00 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] atomic_fetch_andnot() in nohz_idle_balance()
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 10:30, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:34:53PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The comment for the atomic_fetch_andnot() in nohz_idle_balance() says:
> >
> > "barrier, pairs with nohz_balance_enter_idle(), ensures ..."
> >
> > which, well, does sound a note of warning... ;-)
> >
> > I see that nohz_balance_enter_idle() has an smp_mb__after_atomic() but
> > the comment for the latter suggests that this barrier is pairing with
> > the smp_mb() in _nohz_idle_balance().
> >
> > So, what is the intended pairing barrier for the atomic_fetch_andnot()?
> > what (which memory accesses) do you want "to order" here?
>
> I can't seem to make sense of that comment either; the best I can come
> up with is that it would order the prior NOHZ_KICK_MASK load vs us then
> changing it.
>
> But that would order against kick_ilb(), not enter_idle.
>
> Vincent?
I can't come with a good explanation.
After looking into my email archive, the only explanation that i have
is that the comments remains from a previous iteration of the feature
that was based on a nohz.stats_state mechanism
Powered by blists - more mailing lists