Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched, numa: Document usages of mm->numa_scan_seq

Waiman Long
2015-04-30T18:42:41Z

On 04/29/2015 02:45 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 14:14 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 04/28/2015 04:00 PM, Jason Low wrote:
>>> The p->mm->numa_scan_seq is accessed using READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE
>>> and modified without exclusive access. It is not clear why it is
>>> accessed this way. This patch provides some documentation on that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Low<jason.low2@hp.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> index 5a44371..794f7d7 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> @@ -1794,6 +1794,11 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p)
>>> u64 runtime, period;
>>> spinlock_t *group_lock = NULL;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * The p->mm->numa_scan_seq gets updated without
>>> + * exclusive access. Use READ_ONCE() here to ensure
>>> + * that the field is read in a single access.
>>> + */
>>> seq = READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq);
>>> if (p->numa_scan_seq == seq)
>>> return;
>>> @@ -2107,6 +2112,13 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int mem_node, int pages, int flags)
>>>
>>> static void reset_ptenuma_scan(struct task_struct *p)
>>> {
>>> + /*
>>> + * We only did a read acquisition of the mmap sem, so
>>> + * p->mm->numa_scan_seq is written to without exclusive access.
>>> + * That's not much of an issue though, since this is just used
>>> + * for statistical sampling. Use WRITE_ONCE and READ_ONCE, which
>>> + * are not expensive, to avoid load/store tearing.
>>> + */
>>> WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq) + 1);
>>> p->mm->numa_scan_offset = 0;
>>> }
>> READ_ONCE followed by a WRITE_ONCE won't stop load/store tearing from
>> happening unless you use an atomic instruction to do the increment. So I
>> think your comment may be a bit misleading.
> Right, the READ and WRITE operations will still be done separately and
> won't be atomic. Here, we're saying that this prevents load/store
> tearing on each of those individual write/read operations. Please let me
> know if you prefer this to be worded differently.

I do have a question of what kind of tearing you are talking about. Do
you mean the tearing due to mm being changed in the middle of the
access? The reason why I don't like this kind of construct is that I am
not sure if
the address translation p->mm->numa_scan_seq is being done once or
twice. I looked at the compiled code and the translation is done only once.

Anyway, the purpose of READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE is not for eliminating
data tearing. They are to make sure that the compiler won't compile away
data access and they are done in the order they appear in the program. I
don't think it is a good idea to associate tearing elimination with
those macros. So I would suggest removing the last sentence in your comment.

Cheers,
Longman