Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/5] kernel_cpustat: convert to atomic 64-bit accessors

[Frederic Weisbecker]

2013/2/21 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2013/2/21 Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/5] kernel_cpustat: convert to atomic 64-bit accessors
>>
>> Use the atomic64_* accessors for all the kernel_cpustat fields to
>> ensure atomic access on non-64 bit platforms.
>>
>> Thanks to Mats Liljegren for CGROUP_CPUACCT related fixes.
>>
>> Cc: Mats Liljegren <mats.liljegren@xxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Funny stuff, I thought struct kernel_cpustat was made of cputime_t
> field. Actually it's u64. So the issue is independant from the new
> full dynticks cputime accounting. It was already broken before.
>
> But yeah that's not the point, we still want to fix this anyway. But
> let's just treat this patch as independant.
>
>> ---
>>  arch/s390/appldata/appldata_os.c   | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 18 ++++++++---------
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c |  2 +-
>>  drivers/macintosh/rack-meter.c     |  6 +++---
>>  fs/proc/stat.c                     | 40 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>  fs/proc/uptime.c                   |  2 +-
>>  include/linux/kernel_stat.h        |  2 +-
>>  kernel/sched/core.c                | 10 +++++-----
>>  kernel/sched/cputime.c             | 38 +++++++++++++++++------------------
>>  9 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/appldata/appldata_os.c b/arch/s390/appldata/appldata_os.c
>> index 87521ba..008b180 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/appldata/appldata_os.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/appldata/appldata_os.c
>> @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ static void appldata_get_os_data(void *data)
>>         int i, j, rc;
>>         struct appldata_os_data *os_data;
>>         unsigned int new_size;
>> +       u64 val;
>>
>>         os_data = data;
>>         os_data->sync_count_1++;
>> @@ -112,22 +113,30 @@ static void appldata_get_os_data(void *data)
>>
>>         j = 0;
>>         for_each_online_cpu(i) {
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_user =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_USER]);
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_nice =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE]);
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_system =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_SYSTEM]);
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_idle =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_IDLE]);
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_irq =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_IRQ]);
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_softirq =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_SOFTIRQ]);
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_iowait =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_IOWAIT]);
>> -               os_data->os_cpu[j].per_cpu_steal =
>> -                       cputime_to_jiffies(kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_STEAL]);
>> +               val = atomic64_read(&kcpustat_cpu(i).cpustat[CPUTIME_USER]);
>
> So I see this repeated pattern everywhere. How about converting that to:
>            kcpustat_cpu_get(i, CPUTIME_USER)
>
> and use that accessor in all other places. That's much more readable
> and then we can later modify the accessing code in one go.
>
> We should perhaps even use atomic_64 in 32 bits and u64 in 64 bits.
>
> [...]
>> @@ -186,11 +186,11 @@ static void account_guest_time(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t cputime,
>>
>>         /* Add guest time to cpustat. */
>>         if (TASK_NICE(p) > 0) {
>> -               cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE] += (__force u64) cputime;
>> -               cpustat[CPUTIME_GUEST_NICE] += (__force u64) cputime;
>> +               atomic64_add((__force u64) cputime, &cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE]);
>> +               atomic64_add((__force u64) cputime, &cpustat[CPUTIME_GUEST_NICE]);
>
> That too should be kcpustat_this_cpu_set(), or kcpustat_this_cpu_add()
> FWIW. But we probably don't need the overhead of atomic_add() that
> does a LOCK.
> atomic_set(var, atomic_read(var) + delta) would be better. All we need
> is that low/high parts of the 64 bits values are stored and read
> without messing up altogether.
>
> Thanks.

Adding some more people in Cc.
--
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/