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 11:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 11:32:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2018 10:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> On 07-06-18, 10:46, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> 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 ?
>>>>
>>>> Normally no, as the compiler wouldn't screw it up badly. But there is no rule
>>>> which stops the compiler from doing this:
>>>>
>>>> idle_duration_ms = 5;
>>>> idle_duration_ms = -5;
>>>> idle_duration_ms = 0;
>>>> idle_duration_ms = <real-value-we-want-to-write>;
>>>>
>>>> So we *must* use READ/WRITE_ONCE() to make sure garbage values aren't seen by
>>>> readers.
>>>
>>> Ok understood. Why would a compiler do this kind of things ?
>>
>> I think the above can happen when the compiler uses the variable as a
>> scratch pad -- very rare I would say.
>>
>> In general a compiler needs to proof that doing this makes no observable
>> difference ("as-if" rule). And since it is a regular variable it can
>> assume data-race-free and do the above (or something like that). Because
>> if there is a data-race it is UB and it can still do whatever it
>> pleases.
>>
>> And here I think the point is that regular variables are considered only
>> in the context of a single linear execution context. Locks are assumed
>> to bound observability.
>>
>> And here the "volatile" and "_atomic" type specifiers again tell the
>> compiler something 'special' is going on and you should not muck with
>> things.
>
> Also, I think, more likely:
>
> if (cond)
> X = 5;
> else
> X = 4;
>
> is allowed to be transformed into:
>
> X = 4;
> if (cond)
> X = 5;
>
> as long as cond doesn't involve a sequence point of sorts (think
> function call).
>
> For the single execution context case, this transformation is valid, but
> it is not in the threaded case. But then we go back to the assumption
> that regular variables are data-race-free.

Thank you very much for the explanations.

-- Daniel


--
<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 14:32    [W:0.395 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site