[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190116192744.GA1576@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:27:44 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, lizefan@...wei.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
dennis@...nel.org, Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] psi: introduce psi monitor
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:24 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:30:12AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > For memory ordering (which Johannes also pointed out) the critical point is:
> > > >
> > > > times[cpu] += delta | if g->polling:
> > > > smp_wmb() | g->polling = polling = 0
> > > > cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1) | smp_rmb()
> > > > | delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
> > > >
> > > > So that hotpath writes to times[] then g->polling and slowpath reads
> > > > g->polling then times[]. cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, so we can
> > > > drop smp_wmb(). Something like this:
> > > >
> > > > times[cpu] += delta | if g->polling:
> > > > cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1) | g->polling = polling = 0
> > > > | smp_rmb()
> > > > | delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
> > > >
> > > > Would that address your concern about ordering?
> > >
> > > cmpxchg() implies smp_mb() before and after, so the smp_wmb() on the
> > > left column is superfluous.
> >
> > Should I keep it in the comments to make it obvious and add a note
> > about implicit barriers being the reason we don't call smp_mb() in the
> > code explicitly?
>
> I'd keep 'em out if they aren't actually in the code. But I'd switch
>
> delta = times[*]
>
> in this comment to to
>
> get_recent_times() // implies smp_mb()
Actually, I might have been mistaken about this. The seqcount locking
does an smp_rmb() and an smp_wmb(), and that orders reads and writes
respectively, but doesn't necessarily order reads against writes.
So I think we need an explicit smp_mb() after all.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists