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 S1755354AbbCBTmx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:53 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50412 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754303AbbCBTmv (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:51 -0500
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:40:33 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.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>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer
	to improve scalability
Message-ID: <20150302194033.GA27914@redhat.com>
References: <1425321731.5304.14.camel@j-VirtualBox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1425321731.5304.14.camel@j-VirtualBox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Well, I forgot everything about this code, but let me ask anyway ;)

On 03/02, Jason Low wrote:
>
> -static void update_gt_cputime(struct task_cputime *a, struct task_cputime *b)
> +static inline void __update_gt_cputime(atomic64_t *cputime, u64 sum_cputime)
>  {
> -	if (b->utime > a->utime)
> -		a->utime = b->utime;
> -
> -	if (b->stime > a->stime)
> -		a->stime = b->stime;
> +	u64 curr_cputime;
> +	/*
> +	 * Set cputime to sum_cputime if sum_cputime > cputime. Use cmpxchg
> +	 * to avoid race conditions with concurrent updates to cputime.
> +	 */
> +retry:
> +	curr_cputime = atomic64_read(cputime);
> +	if (sum_cputime > curr_cputime) {
> +		if (atomic64_cmpxchg(cputime, curr_cputime, sum_cputime) != curr_cputime)
> +			goto retry;
> +	}
> +}
>  
> -	if (b->sum_exec_runtime > a->sum_exec_runtime)
> -		a->sum_exec_runtime = b->sum_exec_runtime;
> +static void update_gt_cputime(struct thread_group_cputimer *cputimer, struct task_cputime *sum)
> +{
> +	__update_gt_cputime(&cputimer->utime, sum->utime);
> +	__update_gt_cputime(&cputimer->stime, sum->stime);
> +	__update_gt_cputime(&cputimer->sum_exec_runtime, sum->sum_exec_runtime);
>  }

And this is called if !cputimer_running().

So who else can update these atomic64_t's ? The caller is called under ->siglock.
IOW, do we really need to cmpxchg/retry ?

Just curious, I am sure I missed something.

> @@ -222,13 +239,10 @@ void thread_group_cputimer(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times)
>  		 * it.
>  		 */
>  		thread_group_cputime(tsk, &sum);
> -		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cputimer->lock, flags);
> -		cputimer->running = 1;
> -		update_gt_cputime(&cputimer->cputime, &sum);
> -	} else
> -		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cputimer->lock, flags);
> -	*times = cputimer->cputime;
> -	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cputimer->lock, flags);
> +		update_gt_cputime(cputimer, &sum);
> +		ACCESS_ONCE(cputimer->running) = 1;

WRITE_ONCE() looks better... but it is not clear to me why do we need it
at all.

Oleg.