lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about barriers for ARM on tools/perf/
Em Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:25:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:21:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to go the other way, and use compiler builtins for
> > the memory barriers instead of relying on the kernel? It looks like the
> > perf_mmap__{read,write}_head functions are basically just acquire/release
> > operations and could therefore be implemented using something like
> > __atomic_load_n(&pc->data_head, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE) and
> > __atomic_store_n(&pc->data_tail, tail, __ATOMIC_RELEASE).

> He wants to do smp refcounting, which needs atomic_inc() /
> atomic_inc_non_zero() / atomic_dec_return() etc..

Right, Will concentrated on what we use those barriers for right now in
tools/perf.

What I am doing right now is to expose what we use in perf to a wider
audience, i.e. code being developed in tools/, with the current intent
of implementing referece counting for multithreaded tools/perf/ tools,
right now only 'perf top', but there are patches floating to load a
perf.data file using as many CPUs as one would like, IIRC initially one
per available CPU.

I am using as a fallback the gcc intrinsics (), but I've heard I rather
should not use those, albeit they seemed to work well for x86_64 and
sparc64:

-------------------------------------------

/**
* atomic_inc - increment atomic variable
* @v: pointer of type atomic_t
*
* Atomically increments @v by 1.
*/
static inline void atomic_inc(atomic_t *v)
{
__sync_add_and_fetch(&v->counter, 1);
}

/**
* atomic_dec_and_test - decrement and test
* @v: pointer of type atomic_t
*
* Atomically decrements @v by 1 and
* returns true if the result is 0, or false for all other
* cases.
*/
static inline int atomic_dec_and_test(atomic_t *v)
{
return __sync_sub_and_fetch(&v->counter, 1) == 0;
}

-------------------------------------------

One of my hopes for a byproduct was to take advantage of improvements
made to that code in the kernel, etc.

At least using the same API, i.e. barrier(), mb(), rmb(), wmb(),
atomic_{inc,dec_and_test,read_init} I will, the whole shebang would be
even cooler.

- Arnaldo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-08 16:41    [W:0.056 / U:8.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site