[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1e5bd3b-cefc-4e74-ae7f-b8ffebe8c745@igalia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 01:04:49 +0900
From: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Changwoo Min <multics69@...il.com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, void@...ifault.com, arighi@...dia.com, mingo@...hat.com,
kernel-dev@...lia.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_now()
Hello,
On 25. 1. 8. 17:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> That is, I rather think you need:
>
>> +static inline void scx_rq_clock_update(struct rq *rq, u64 clock)
>> +{
>> + if (!scx_enabled())
>> + return;
>> + WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.clock, clock);
>> + smp_store_release(&rq->scx.flags, rq->scx.flags | SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID);
>> +}
>
> and:
>
> if (smp_load_acquire(&rq->scx.flags) & SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID) {
>> + /*
>> + * If the rq clock is valid, use the cached rq clock.
>> + *
>> + * Note that scx_bpf_now() is re-entrant between a process
>> + * context and an interrupt context (e.g., timer interrupt).
>> + * However, we don't need to consider the race between them
>> + * because such race is not observable from a caller.
>> + */
>> + clock = READ_ONCE(rq->scx.clock);
>
> Such that if you ovbserve VALID, you must then also observe the clock.
Thank you for catching this out! I will change it as suggested in
the next version.
Regards,
Changwoo Min
Powered by blists - more mailing lists