[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQtJ81TMvjExJ3+hm1f+E1zkbTi-au-GkJRTg9ovZgEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:20:57 -0700
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
nelson.dsouza@...el.com, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
tonyj@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf/x86/intel: force resched when TFA sysctl is modified
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 8:57 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:32:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > +static ssize_t set_sysctl_tfa(struct device *cdev,
> > + struct device_attribute *attr,
> > + const char *buf, size_t count)
> > +{
> > + bool val;
> > + ssize_t ret;
> > +
> > + ret = kstrtobool(buf, &val);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + /* no change */
> > + if (val == allow_tsx_force_abort)
> > + return count;
> > +
> > + allow_tsx_force_abort = val;
> > +
> > + get_online_cpus();
> > + on_each_cpu(update_tfa_sched, NULL, 1);
> > + put_online_cpus();
> > +
> > + return count;
> > +}
>
> So we care about concurrent writing to that file?
Not likely but we care about seeing the effects on event scheduling
before the sysctl returns.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists