From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:05:39 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] cpustat: use atomic operations to read/update stats In-Reply-To: <20130222125019.GC17948@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1361512604-2720-1-git-send-email-khilman@linaro.org> <1361522767.26780.44.camel@laptop> <20130222125019.GC17948@somewhere.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1361541939.26780.63.camel@laptop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 13:50 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Which is a problem how? > > So here is a possible scenario, CPU 0 reads a kcpustat value, and CPU > 1 writes > it at the same time: > > //Initial value of "cpustat" is 0xffffffff > == CPU 0 == == CPU 1 == > > //load low part > mov %eax, [cpustat] > inc [cpustat] > //Update the high part if necessary > jnc 1f > inc [cpustat + 4] > 1: > //load high part > mov %edx, [cpustat + 4] > > > Afterward, CPU 0 will think the value is 0x1ffffffff while it's > actually > 0x100000000. > > atomic64_read() and atomic64_set() are supposed to take care of that, > without > even the need for _inc() or _add() parts that use LOCK. Sure I get that, but again, why is that a problem,.. who relies on these statistics that makes it a problem? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756947Ab3BVOFp (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:45 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:36030 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755642Ab3BVOFo (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:44 -0500 Message-ID: <1361541939.26780.63.camel@laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpustat: use atomic operations to read/update stats From: Peter Zijlstra To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Kevin Hilman , Russell King , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:05:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20130222125019.GC17948@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1361512604-2720-1-git-send-email-khilman@linaro.org> <1361522767.26780.44.camel@laptop> <20130222125019.GC17948@somewhere.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 13:50 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Which is a problem how? > > So here is a possible scenario, CPU 0 reads a kcpustat value, and CPU > 1 writes > it at the same time: > > //Initial value of "cpustat" is 0xffffffff > == CPU 0 == == CPU 1 == > > //load low part > mov %eax, [cpustat] > inc [cpustat] > //Update the high part if necessary > jnc 1f > inc [cpustat + 4] > 1: > //load high part > mov %edx, [cpustat + 4] > > > Afterward, CPU 0 will think the value is 0x1ffffffff while it's > actually > 0x100000000. > > atomic64_read() and atomic64_set() are supposed to take care of that, > without > even the need for _inc() or _add() parts that use LOCK. Sure I get that, but again, why is that a problem,.. who relies on these statistics that makes it a problem?