From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:27:53 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: percpu: Make this_cpu accessors pre-empt safe
In-Reply-To: <20150319161143.GE25967@leverpostej>
References: <1426776751-20526-1-git-send-email-steve.capper@linaro.org>
 <20150319154435.GC25967@leverpostej>
 <20150319160008.GA4751@arm.com>
 <20150319161143.GE25967@leverpostej>
Message-ID: <20150319162753.GC4751@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:11:44PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:00:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:44:36PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 02:52:31PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Modules aren't allowed to use preempt_enable_no_resched, and it is
> > > > + * undef'ed. If we are unable to use preempt_enable_no_resched, then
> > > > + * fallback to the standard preempt_enable.
> > > > + */
> > > > +#ifdef preempt_enable_no_resched
> > > > +#define __pcp_preempt_enable()	preempt_enable_no_resched()
> > > > +#else
> > > > +#define __pcp_preempt_enable()	preempt_enable()
> > > > +#endif /* preempt_enable_no_resched */
> > > 
> > > I think it would be worth mentioning in the comment why we want to use
> > > preempt_enable_no_resched where possible (e.g. read-modify-cmpxchg
> > > sequences where we want to have as few retries as possible).
> > 
> > Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. In the interest of throughput, I can
> > understand that you want to minimise the retries but since preempt kernels
> > are all about minimising latency then actually scheduling when a cmpxchg
> > loop fail sounds pretty ideal to me.
> 
> I'm on about scheduling at the end of the read, before the cmpxchg. It's
> basically asking for another thread to make the read stale (and hence
> the cmpxchg is very likely to fail).

/me gets introduced to SLUB's slab_alloc_node.

> Scheduling after the cmpxchg is fine.

I still don't think the slub code warrants using preempt_enable_no_resched,
for a number of reasons:

  (1) s390 uses preempt_enable, so it doesn't appear to be the end of the
      world

  (2) The slub code is well aware of what it's doing, but doesn't consider
      it an issue:

      * [...] We may switch back and forth between cpus while
      * reading from one cpu area. That does not matter as long
      * as we end up on the original cpu again when doing
      * the cmpxchg.

  (3) Preemption isn't actually an issue here -- CPU migration is. I'd
      expect that to be a lot rarer.

  (4) Having different preempt behaviour depending on whether or not
      something is built as a module is bloody horrible

If we wanted to change anything, SLUB is probably a better candidate than
the pcpu accessors!

Will