lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework
From
Date
On 07/06/2018 10:42, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 07-06-18, 10:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 10:18:27AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> So IIUC, neither atomic or WRITE|READ_ONCE are necessary in this code
>>> because of the wake_up_process() barrier is enough, right ?
>>
>> I didn't look hard enough; if there ever is a time where the loads and
>> stores happen concurrently, you need READ/WRITE_ONCE(). If there is no
>> concurrency on the variables, you don't need anything.
>>
>> Neither atomic_read/set() nor REAd/WRITE_ONCE() will help with ordering,
>> which is what the wake_up_process() would provide here, different things
>> entirely.
>
> Right and you still need the READ/WRITE_ONCE() thing as
> idle_injection_set_duration() may run in parallel with the idle_injection_fn()
> thread.
>
> And I don't think the purpose of atomic_read/write was ever to take care of the
> ordering issues in this code, it was always about parallel loads/stores.

Yes, correct.

But if we don't care about who wins to store to value, is there a risk
of scramble variable if we just assign a value ?


--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-07 10:46    [W:0.035 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site