Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offlinefrom atomic context

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 12/12/2012 10:54 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>
>>> IOW, the hotplug readers just increment/decrement their per-cpu refcounts
>>> when no writer is active.
>>
>> plus cli/sti ;) and increment/decrement are atomic.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> OOPS, sorry I was going to say "adds mb()".
> 

Ok, got it :)

> And when I look at get_online_cpus_atomic() again it uses rmb(). This
> doesn't look correct, we need the full barrier between this_cpu_inc()
> and writer_active().
> 

Hmm..

> At the same time reader_nested_percpu() can be checked before mb().
> 

I thought that since the increment and the check (reader_nested_percpu)
act on the same memory location, they will naturally be run in the given
order, without any need for barriers. Am I wrong?

(I referred Documentation/memory-barriers.txt again to verify this, and
the second point under the "Guarantees" section looked like it said the
same thing : "Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will
appear to be ordered within that CPU").

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/