Re: [PATCH 5/5] nohz: Use IPI implicit full barrier against rq->nr_running r/w

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:40:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> A full dynticks CPU is allowed to stop its tick when a single task runs.
> Meanwhile when a new task gets enqueued, the CPU must be notified so that
> it can restart its tick to maintain local fairness and other accounting
> details.
> 
> This notification is performed by way of an IPI. Then when the target
> receives the IPI, we expect it to see the new value of rq->nr_running.
> 
> Hence the following ordering scenario:
> 
>    CPU 0                   CPU 1
> 
>    write rq->running       get IPI
>    smp_wmb()               smp_rmb()
>    send IPI                read rq->nr_running
> 
> But Paul Mckenney says that nowadays IPIs imply a full barrier on
> all architectures. So we can safely remove this pair and rely on the
> implicit barriers that come along IPI send/receive. Lets
> just comment on this new assumption.
> 
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: pgpKyDPgqp03r.pgp
Description: PGP signature