lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 08:00:05PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/24, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 07:06:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > If gcc can actually do something wrong, then I suspect this barrier()
> > > should be unconditional.
> >
> > If you are saying that there should be a barrier() on all return paths
> > from get_online_cpus(), I agree.
>
> Paul, Peter, could you provide any (even completely artificial) example
> to explain me why do we need this barrier() ? I am puzzled. And
> preempt_enable() already has barrier...
>
> get_online_cpus();
> do_something();
>
> Yes, we need to ensure gcc doesn't reorder this code so that
> do_something() comes before get_online_cpus(). But it can't? At least
> it should check current->cpuhp_ref != 0 first? And if it is non-zero
> we do not really care, we are already in the critical section and
> this ->cpuhp_ref has only meaning in put_online_cpus().
>
> Confused...


So the reason I put it in was because of the inline; it could possibly
make it do:

test 0, current->cpuhp_ref
je label1:
inc current->cpuhp_ref

label2:
do_something();

label1:
inc %gs:__preempt_count
test 0, __cpuhp_writer
jne label3
inc %gs:__cpuhp_refcount
label5
dec %gs:__preempt_count
je label4
jmp label2
label3:
call __get_online_cpus();
jmp label5
label4:
call ____preempt_schedule();
jmp label2

In which case the recursive fast path doesn't have a barrier() between
taking the ref and starting do_something().

I wanted to make absolutely sure nothing of do_something leaked before
the label2 thing. The other labels all have barrier() from the
preempt_count ops.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-24 23:01    [W:0.129 / U:2.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site