[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6D8AECB@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:01:19 -0000
From: "David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "Junchang Wang" <junchangwang@...il.com>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
"nic swsd" <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] r8169: Add 64bit statistics
> From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com]
> Le jeudi 17 novembre 2011 à 11:13 +0000, David Laight a écrit :
> > The 64bit stats update sequence used to get valid
> > counts on 32bit systems (that can't do locked 64bit
> > memory access) seems to be:
> >
> > > u64_stats_update_begin(&sky2->tx_stats.syncp);
> > > ++sky2->tx_stats.packets;
> > > sky2->tx_stats.bytes += skb->len;
> > > u64_stats_update_end(&sky2->tx_stats.syncp);
> >
> > I'm not sure what the begin/end markers do, but
> > they need to hold off the readers during updates
> > and the writers during reads - this is probably
> > expensive on the update path.
> >
> > A thought that might work is for the writer to
> > write the middle bits of the 64 bit walue to
> > another location, eg:
> > count = sky2->tx_stats.bytes + skb->len;
> > sky2->tx_stats.bytes = count;
> > sky2->tx_stats.bytes_check = count >> 16;
> > The reader then loops until the two value are
> > consistent.
> >
> > I think this doesn't even require a memory barrier
> > in the ISR since the order of the reads an writes
> > doesn't matter at all.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>
> Oh well...
>
> Before claiming all this, you really should read
> include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h
>
> This should answer all your questions.
Ah yes ...
Both u64_stats_update_begin & _end increment a numeric field
with an appropriate memory barrier. So the 'update' path
has two extra read-modify-write sequences (possibly the
2nd read can be optimised out), and two smp_wmb() that may
introduce bus delays.
Would be fine if it were guaranteed to work!
Consider the following sequence of events:
u64_stats_update_begin()
calculate 'count+1'
read_seqcount_begin()
read count_hi
write count_lo
read count_lo
write count_hi
read_seqcount_retry()
... update other counters ...
u64_stats_update_end()
The reader gets an invalid value since it reads the same
'sequence' both times.
Could be fixed by using '|= 1' in update_begin and
looping on odd values in read_seqcount_begin().
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists