Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1406556
| From | Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE |
| Date | 2016-05-25 03:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rCvO2-2Kd-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <rAdsj-54h-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <rAfNn-6pu-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rAfNn-6pu-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rBhDs-5HD-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rC35o-13f-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 05/23/2016 02:46 PM, Jason Low wrote: > On Sat, 2016-05-21 at 09:04 -0700, Peter Hurley wrote: >> On 05/18/2016 12:58 PM, Jason Low wrote: >>> It should be fine to use the standard READ_ONCE here, even if it's just >>> for documentation, as it's probably not going to cost anything in >>> practice. It would be better to avoid adding any special macros for this >>> which may just add more complexity. >> See, I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. >> >> I read this as "it's ok to be non-optimal here where were spinning CPU >> time but not ok to be non-optimal generally elsewhere where it's >> way less important like at init time". > So I think there is a difference between using it during init time and > using it here where we're spinning. During init time, initializing the > owner field locklessly is normal. No other thread should be concurrently > be writing to the field, since the structure is just getting > initialized, so there are no surprises there. > > Our access of the owner field in this function is special in that we're > using a bit of "lockless magic" to read and write to a field that gets > concurrently accessed without any serialization. Since we're not taking > the wait_lock in a scenario where we'd normally would take a lock, it > would be good to have this documented. > >> And by the way, it's not just "here" but _everywhere_. >> What about reading ->on_cpu locklessly? > Sure, we could also use READ_ONCE when reading ->on_cpu :) > As on_cpu is just a boolean, load tearing isn't really a problem. You either see the bit 0 set or not, but not something in between (not a qbit) :-) Cheers, Longman
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE() Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 03:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE() Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-18 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE() Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 22:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-20 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> - 2016-05-21 18:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-22 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-23 20:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-23 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-23 22:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-23 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2016-05-25 03:30 +0200
csiph-web