Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:44:14 +0100
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] atomic_fetch_andnot() in nohz_idle_balance()
Message-ID: <20181126204414.GA4643@andrea>
References: <20181121223453.GA4016@andrea>
 <20181126093051.GV2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtDm49JS7thuUn0--ocqpn2Du4qi8qsUeeHzGrAG_F2epw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDm49JS7thuUn0--ocqpn2Du4qi8qsUeeHzGrAG_F2epw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:37:00PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 10:30, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:34:53PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The comment for the atomic_fetch_andnot() in nohz_idle_balance() says:
> > >
> > >   "barrier, pairs with nohz_balance_enter_idle(), ensures ..."
> > >
> > > which, well, does sound a note of warning... ;-)
> > >
> > > I see that nohz_balance_enter_idle() has an smp_mb__after_atomic() but
> > > the comment for the latter suggests that this barrier is pairing with
> > > the smp_mb() in _nohz_idle_balance().
> > >
> > > So, what is the intended pairing barrier for the atomic_fetch_andnot()?
> > > what (which memory accesses) do you want "to order" here?
> >
> > I can't seem to make sense of that comment either; the best I can come
> > up with is that it would order the prior NOHZ_KICK_MASK load vs us then
> > changing it.
> >
> > But that would order against kick_ilb(), not enter_idle.
> >
> > Vincent?
> 
> I can't come with a good explanation.
> After looking into my email archive, the only explanation that i have
> is that the comments remains from a previous iteration of the feature
> that was based on a nohz.stats_state mechanism

I'm afraid I still can't help your comment...  put in other terms, would
you feel "unconfortable" with _relax()ing the andnot()?  (and if so ...)

  Andrea