From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ia64 clocksource
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:50:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1184712606.5836.24.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070714002509.GJ2317@localhost>
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 18:31 -0400, Bob Picco wrote:
> Hi:
> Thanks for the review.
> Hidetoshi Seto wrote: [Tue Jul 17 2007, 06:55:47AM EDT]
> > Bob Picco wrote:
> > >@@ -214,61 +209,56 @@ ENTRY(fsys_gettimeofday)
> > :
> > > movl r27 = xtime
> > :
> > > .time_redo:
> > >- .pred.rel.mutex p8,p9,p10
> > >- ld4.acq r28 = [r29] // xtime_lock.sequence. Must come first for
> > >locking purposes
> > >+ ld4.acq r28 = [r20] // gtod_lock.sequence, Must be first in
> > >struct
> > :
> > > ld8 r8 = [r27],-IA64_TIMESPEC_TV_NSEC_OFFSET // xtime.tv_nsec
> > :
> > >- ld4 r10 = [r29] // xtime_lock.sequence
> > >+ ld4 r10 = [r20] // gtod_lock.sequence, old
> > >xtime_lock.sequence
> > :
> > > cmp4.ne.or p7,p0 = r28,r10
> > >-(p7) br.cond.dpnt.few .time_redo // sequence number changed ?
> > >+(p7) br.cond.dpnt.few .time_redo // sequence number changed, outer
> > >loop2
> >
> > This patch removes locking xtime_lock but the code still reads xtime
> Well what I see is the update_vsyscall holding the xtime_lock and then
> acquiring the fsyscall_gtod_data.lock seqlock. This sequence begins in
> do_settimeofday. So the vsyscall could have a tiny window of discrepancy
> but miminal. Perhaps John can comment on this. To me this is no
> different than x86_64 but perhaps I'm missing a subtle difference.
> >
> > Since gtod_lock.sequence will not tell us whether xtime is updated
> > (or going to be updated) while in this window, the result may be wrong...
So w/ x86_64, we've split the xtime_lock and get vgtod_lock, so that
only when the vsyscall page is being updated do we hold a write on the
vgtod_lock. This is safe as the vsyscall gtod does not access the
kernel's time structures (xtime and friends). Instead it reads its copy
of them that is made in update_vsyscall().
So it should be fine to use the gtod_lock.sequence, assuming you're also
not touching the kernel's xtime directly (and instead using copy of
xtime made in update_vsyscall).
Does that make sense?
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-17 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-14 0:25 [PATCH 1/2] ia64 clocksource Bob Picco
2007-07-14 10:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-07-16 10:07 ` Bob Picco
2007-07-16 21:33 ` Luck, Tony
2007-07-17 10:55 ` Hidetoshi Seto
2007-07-17 22:31 ` Bob Picco
2007-07-17 22:50 ` john stultz [this message]
2007-07-18 9:27 ` Hidetoshi Seto
2007-07-19 16:31 ` Doug Chapman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1184712606.5836.24.camel@localhost \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox