[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r0g3q9cz.fsf_-_@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:38:20 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>, Yu
Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Michal Hocko
<mhocko@...e.com>, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Barry Song
<21cnbao@...il.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Can you help us on memory barrier usage? (was Re: [PATCH v4 4/6]
mm: swap: Allow storage of all mTHP orders)
Hi, Paul,
Can you help us on WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() usage as follows?
For some example kernel code as follows,
"
unsigned char x[16];
void writer(void)
{
memset(x, 1, sizeof(x));
/* To make memset() take effect ASAP */
barrier();
}
unsigned char reader(int n)
{
return READ_ONCE(x[n]);
}
"
where, writer() and reader() may be called on 2 CPUs without any lock.
It's acceptable for reader() to read the written value a little later.
Our questions are,
1. because it's impossible for accessing "unsigned char" to cause
tearing. So, WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() isn't necessary for
correctness, right?
2. we use barrier() and READ_ONCE() in writer() and reader(), because we
want to make writing take effect ASAP. Is it a good practice? Or it's
a micro-optimization that should be avoided?
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists