On 09/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:41:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 09/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > > +static bool cpuhp_readers_active_check(void)
> > > > {
> > > > + unsigned int seq = per_cpu_sum(cpuhp_seq);
> > > > +
> > > > + smp_mb(); /* B matches A */
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * In other words, if we see __get_online_cpus() cpuhp_seq increment,
> > > > + * we are guaranteed to also see its __cpuhp_refcount increment.
> > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > + if (per_cpu_sum(__cpuhp_refcount) != 0)
> > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > > + smp_mb(); /* D matches C */
> > >
> > > It seems that both barries could be smp_rmb() ? I am not sure the comments
> > > from srcu_readers_active_idx_check() can explain mb(), note that
> > > __srcu_read_lock() always succeeds unlike get_cpus_online().
> >
> > I see what you mean; cpuhp_readers_active_check() is all purely reads;
> > there are no writes to order.
> >
> > Paul; is there any argument for the MB here as opposed to RMB; and if
> > not should we change both these and SRCU?
>
> Given that these memory barriers execute only on the semi-slow path,
> why add the complexity of moving from smp_mb() to either smp_rmb()
> or smp_wmb()? Straight smp_mb() is easier to reason about and more
> robust against future changes.
But otoh this looks misleading, and the comments add more confusion.
But please note another email, it seems to me we can simply kill
cpuhp_seq and all the barriers in cpuhp_readers_active_check().
Oleg.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>