Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer to improve scalability

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:44:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > In original code, we set cputimer->running first so it is running while
> > we call update_gt_cputime(). Now in this patch, we swapped the 2 calls
> > such that we set running after calling update_gt_cputime(), so that
> > wouldn't be an issue anymore.
> 
> Hmm. If you actually care about ordering, and 'running' should be
> written to after the other things, then it might be best if you use
> 
>    smp_store_release(&cputimer->running, 1);
> 
> which makes it clear that the store happens *after* what went before it.
> 
> Or at least have a "smp_wmb()" between the atomic64 updates and the
> "WRITE_ONCE()".

FWIW, perhaps it can be reduced with an smp_mb__before_atomic() on the
account_group_*_time() side, paired with smp_wmb() from the thread_group_cputimer()
side. Arming cputime->running shouldn't be too frequent while update cputime
happens at least every tick...

Assuming smp_mb__before_atomic() is more lightweight than smp_load_acquire()
of course. 

> 
> I guess that since you use cmpxchg in update_gt_cputime, the accesses
> end up being ordered anyway, but it might be better to make that thing
> very explicit.
> 
>                    Linus