lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:05:39PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Hi Daniel, Viresh,
>
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:15:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 06-06-18, 12:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > (mb() are done in the atomic operations AFAICT).
>
> To do my bit, not all atomic ops do/imply memory barriers; e.g.,
>
> [from Documentation/atomic_t.txt]
>
> - non-RMW operations [e.g., atomic_set()] are unordered
>
> - RMW operations that have no return value [e.g., atomic_inc()] are unordered

Quite so indeed.

> > AFAIU, it is required to make sure the operations are seen in a particular order
> > on another CPU and the compiler doesn't reorganize code to optimize it.
> >
> > For example, in our case what if the compiler reorganizes the atomic-set
> > operation after wakeup-process ? But maybe that wouldn't happen across function
> > calls and we should be safe then.
>
> IIUC, wake_up_process() implies a full memory barrier and a compiler barrier,
> due to:

Yes, the wakeup being a RELEASE (at least) is a fairly fundamental
property for causality. You expect the woken task to observe the
condition it got woken up on.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-06 14:30    [W:0.056 / U:3.744 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site