From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: fix dirtied pages accounting on sub-page
 writes
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:53:19 +0100
Message-ID: <1321969999.14799.10.camel@twins>
References: <20111121130342.211953629@intel.com>
	 <20111121131215.905222115@intel.com> <20111122001127.GG4017@quack.suse.cz>
	 <20111122092110.GB12864@localhost> <20111122122157.GB8058@quack.suse.cz>
	 <1321966662.5148.35.camel@twins> <20111122130750.GA19929@localhost>
	 <20111122134155.GA23599@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	paulmck <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111122134155.GA23599@localhost>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 21:41 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:07:50PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:57:42PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 13:21 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > +             __get_cpu_var(bdp_ratelimits)++;
> > > >   I think you need preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() pair around
> > > > __get_cpu_var(). Otherwise a process could get rescheduled in the middle of
> > > > read-modify-write cycle... 
> > > 
> > > there's of course the this_cpu_inc(bdp_ratelimits); thing.
> > > 
> > > On x86 that'll turn into a single insn, on others it will add the
> > > required preempt_disable/enable bits.
> > 
> > It's good to know that. But what if we don't really care which CPU
> > data it's increasing, and can accept losing some increases due to the
> > resulted race condition?
> 
> I just added a comment for it, hope it helps :)
> 
>                 /*
>                  * This is racy, however bdp_ratelimits merely serves as a
>                  * gross safeguard. We don't really care the exact CPU it's
>                  * charging to and the resulted inaccuracy is acceptable.
>                  */
>                 __get_cpu_var(bdp_ratelimits)++;

Thing is, I'm not sure how much update you can effectively wreck by
interleaving the RmW cycles of two CPUs like this.

Simply loosing a few increments would be fine, but what are the
practical implications of actually relying on this behaviour and how do
various architectures cope.