On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:43:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:51:05PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > In mem cgroup, we need to guarantee that two concurrent updates
> > of the jump_label interface wait for each other. IOW, we can't have
> > other updates returning while the first one is still patching the
> > kernel around, otherwise we'll race.
>
> But it shouldn't. The code as is should prevent that.
>
> >
> > I believe this is something that can fit well in the static branch
> > API, without noticeable disadvantages:
> >
> > * in the common case, it will be a quite simple lock/unlock operation
> > * Every context that calls static_branch_slow* already expects to be
> > in sleeping context because it will mutex_lock the unlikely case.
> > * static_key_slow_inc is not expected to be called in any fast path,
> > otherwise it would be expected to have quite a different name. Therefore
> > the mutex + atomic combination instead of just an atomic should not kill
> > us.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Li Zefan <lizefan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > CC: Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/jump_label.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
> > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > index 4304919..5d09cb4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> > +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > @@ -57,17 +57,16 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct static_key *key, int enable);
> >
> > void static_key_slow_inc(struct static_key *key)
> > {
> > + jump_label_lock();
> > if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&key->enabled))
> > - return;
>
> If key->enabled is not zero, there's nothing to be done. As the jump
> label has already been enabled. Note, the key->enabled doesn't get set
> until after the jump label is updated. Thus, if two tasks were to come
> in, they both would be locked on the jump_label_lock().
>
Right, for x86 which uses stop_machine currently, we guarantee that all
cpus are going to see the updated code, before the inc of key->enabled.
However, other arches (sparc, mips, powerpc, for example), seem to be
using much lighter weight updates, which I hope are ok :)
Thanks,
-Jason
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>