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 S1945980AbbCEQAM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:00:12 -0500
Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179]:46356 "EHLO
	mail-we0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S964862AbbCEQAI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:00:08 -0500
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:00:05 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer
 to improve scalability
Message-ID: <20150305160004.GE5074@lerouge>
References: <1425321731.5304.14.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <20150305153506.GD5074@lerouge>
 <20150305155659.GD5773@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150305155659.GD5773@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:56:59AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:35:09PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Well, if we are running within a guest OS, we might be delayed at any point
> for quite some time.  Even with interrupts disabled.

You mean delayed because of the overhead of atomic_add_return() or the stale value
of cptimer-> fields?