From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753744AbbCFAGY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:06:24 -0500
Received: from g9t5008.houston.hp.com ([15.240.92.66]:44577 "EHLO
	g9t5008.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752552AbbCFAGX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:06:23 -0500
Message-ID: <1425600379.2475.76.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer
 to improve scalability
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Scott Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jason.low2@hp.com
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:06:19 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20150305153506.GD5074@lerouge>
References: <1425321731.5304.14.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <20150305153506.GD5074@lerouge>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 16:35 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 10:42:11AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:

> > +/* Sample thread_group_cputimer values in "cputimer", copy results to "times" */
> > +static inline void sample_group_cputimer(struct task_cputime *times,
> > +			                 struct thread_group_cputimer *cputimer)
> > +{
> > +        times->utime = atomic64_read(&cputimer->utime);
> > +        times->stime = atomic64_read(&cputimer->stime);
> > +        times->sum_exec_runtime = atomic64_read(&cputimer->sum_exec_runtime);
> 
> So, in the case we are calling that right after setting cputimer->running, I guess we are fine
> because we just updated cputimer with the freshest values.
> 
> But if we are reading this a while after, say several ticks further, there is a chance that
> we read stale values since we don't lock anymore.
> 
> I don't know if it matters or not, I guess it depends how stale it can be and how much precision
> we expect from posix cpu timers. It probably doesn't matter.
> 
> But just in case, atomic64_read_return(&cputimer->utime, 0) would make sure we get the freshest
> value because it performs a full barrier, at the cost of more overhead of course.

(Assuming that is atomic64_add_return :))

Yeah, there aren't any guarantees that we read the freshest value, but
since the lock isn't used to serialize subsequent accesses of
times->utime, ect..., the values can potentially become stale by the
time they get used anyway, even when we have the locking.

So I'm not sure if atomic64_add_return(&time, 0) for the reads would
really provide much of a benefit when we factor in the extra overhead.