From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Parri Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 21:12:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20181002191217.GA4160@andrea> References: <20180912091309.7551-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20180912091309.7551-4-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20181002123031.GZ3439@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181002125115.245r3ocusvyiexno@queper01-lin> <20181002134857.GE26858@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181002140430.fpeiqzblbcaewg6n@queper01-lin> <20181002142924.GI26858@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181002144025.wnanxibhdcnl23sf@queper01-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181002144025.wnanxibhdcnl23sf@queper01-lin> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Quentin Perret Cc: Peter Zijlstra , rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, thara.gopinath@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tkjos@google.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, smuckle@google.com, adharmap@codeaurora.org, skannan@codeaurora.org, pkondeti@codeaurora.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, edubezval@gmail.com, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, currojerez@riseup.net, javi.merino@kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:40:28PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Tuesday 02 Oct 2018 at 16:29:24 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:05:23PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > On Tuesday 02 Oct 2018 at 15:48:57 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > +/** > > > > + * em_cpu_get() - Return the performance domain for a CPU > > > > + * @cpu : CPU to find the performance domain for > > > > + * > > > > + * Return: the performance domain to which 'cpu' belongs, or NULL if it doesn't > > > > + * exist. > > > > + */ > > > > +struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu) > > > > +{ > > > > + return READ_ONCE(per_cpu(em_data, cpu)); > > > > +} > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_cpu_get); > > > > > > > > But your read side doesn't take, not is required to take em_pd_mutex. > > > > > > > > At that point, the mutex_unlock() doesn't guarantee anything. > > > > > > > > A CPU observing the em_data store, doesn't need to observe the store > > > > that filled the data structure it points to. > > > > > > Right but even if I add the smp_store_release(), I can still have a > > > CPU observing em_data while another is in the process of updating it. > > > So, if smp_store_release() doesn't guarantee that readers will see a > > > complete update, do I actually get something interesting from it ? > > > (That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually wondering :-) > > > > I thought the update would fail if em_data was already set. > > > > That is, you can only set this thing up _once_ and then you'll have to > > forever live with it. > > > > Or did I read that wrong? > > No no, that's correct. em_data is populated once and kept as-is > forever. > > What I was trying to say is, when em_data is being populated for the > first time, nothing prevents a reader from using em_cpu_get() > concurrently. And in this case, it doesn't matter if you use > smp_store_release() or not, the reader might see the table half-updated. > > So, basically, smp_store_release() doesn't guarantee that readers won't > see a half-baked em_data. That's the point I'm trying to make at least :-) An example might help clarify this: here is a scenario I can _imagine, based on your description. CPU0 (em_register_perf_domain()) CPU1 (reader) [...] my_pd = READ_ONCE(per_cpu(em_data, 1)); /* em_cpu_get() */ pd->table = table if (my_pd) WRITE_ONCE(per_cpu(em_data, 1), pd); my_table = my_pd->table; /* process, dereference, ... my_table */ In this scenario, we'd like CPU1 to see CPU0's store to ->table (as well as the stores to table[]) _if CPU1 sees CPU0's store to em_data (that is, if my_pd != NULL). This guarantee does not hold with the WRITE_ONCE(), because CPU0 could propagate the store to ->table and the store to em_data out-of-order. The smp_store_release(), together with the address dependency headed by the READ_ONCE(), provides this guarantee (and more...). (Enclosing the reader into an em_pd_mutex critical section would also provide this guarantee, but I can imagine a few arguments for not using a mutex... ;-) ). The question, I guess, is whether you want such a guarantee. Andrea