Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:52:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, hideaki.kimura@hp.com,
        Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, timer: Remove usages of ACCESS_ONCE in the
 scheduler
Message-ID: <20150416165224.GD12676@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1429052986-9420-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
 <1429052986-9420-2-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
 <20150414195906.3adc89d9@gandalf.local.home>
 <1429063953.7039.88.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <20150414224059.061ec5bf@grimm.local.home>
 <20150415074601.GC13449@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150415074601.GC13449@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1671
Lines: 43

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:46:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

 > @@ -2088,7 +2088,7 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int mem_node, int pages, int flags)
 >  
 >  static void reset_ptenuma_scan(struct task_struct *p)
 >  {
 > -	ACCESS_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq)++;
 > +	WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq) + 1);
 
vs

	seq = ACCESS_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq);
	if (p->numa_scan_seq == seq)
		return;
	p->numa_scan_seq = seq;


> So the original ACCESS_ONCE() barriers were misguided to begin with: I 
> think they tried to handle races with the scheduler balancing softirq 
> and tried to avoid having to use atomics for the sequence counter 
> (which would be overkill), but things like ACCESS_ONCE(x)++ never 
> guaranteed atomicity (or even coherency) of the update.
> 
> But since in reality this is only statistical sampling code, all these 
> compiler barriers can be removed I think. Peter, Mel, Rik, do you 
> agree?

ACCESS_ONCE() is not a compiler barrier

The 'read' side uses ACCESS_ONCE() for two purposes:
 - to load the value once, we don't want the seq number to change under
   us for obvious reasons
 - to avoid load tearing and observe weird seq numbers

The update side uses ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid write tearing, and strictly
speaking it should also worry about read-tearing since its not hard
serialized, although its very unlikely to actually have concurrency
(IIRC).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/