Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: Pull preemption disablement to __schedule() caller

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:53:03AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 06:53:45PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > It looks like preempt_count_add/inc() mostly imply entering a context that we want
> > to be seen right away (thus want barrier() after) and preempt_count_sub/dec() mostly
> > want previous work to be visible before re-enabling interrupt, preemption, etc...
> > (thus want barrier() before).
> > 
> > So maybe these functions (the non-underscored ones) should imply a barrier() rather
> > than their callers (preempt_disable() and others). Inline functions instead of macros
> > would do the trick (if the headers hell let us do that).
> > 
> > Note the underscored implementations are all inline currently so this happens to
> > work by chance for direct calls to preempt_count_add/sub() outside preempt_disable().
> > If the non-underscored caller is turned into inline too I don't expect performance issues.
> > 
> > What do you think, does it make sense?
> 
> AFAIK inline does _not_ guarantee a compiler barrier, only an actual
> function call does.
> 
> When inlining the compiler creates visibility into the 'call' and can
> avoid the constraint -- teh interweb seems to agree and also pointed out
> that 'pure' function calls, even when actual function calls, can avoid
> being a compiler barrier.
> 
> The below blog seems to do a fair job of explaining things; in
> particular the 'implied compiler barriers' section is relevant here:
> 
>   http://preshing.com/20120625/memory-ordering-at-compile-time/

Ok, ok then.
 
> As it stands the difference between the non underscore and the
> underscore version is debug/tracing muck. The underscore ops are the raw
> operations without fancy bits on.
> 
> I think I would prefer keeping it that way; this means that
> preempt_count_$op() is a pure op and when we want to build stuff with it
> like preempt_{en,dis}able() they add the extra semantics on top.
> 
> In any case; if we make __schedule() noinline (I think that might make
> sense) that function call would itself imply the compiler barrier and
> something like:
> 
> 	__preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE + PREEMPT_CHECK_OFFSET);
> 	__schedule();
> 	__preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE + PREEMPT_CHECK_OFFSET);
> 
> Would actually be safe/correct.
> 
> As it stands I think __schedule() would fail the GCC inline static
> criteria for being too large, but you never know, noinline guarantees it
> will not.

Right, although relying only on __schedule() as a function call is perhaps
error-prone in case we add things in preempt_schedule*() APIs later, before
the call to __schedule(), that need the preempt count to be visible.

I can create preempt_active_enter() / preempt_active_exit() that take care
of the preempt op and the barrier() for example.

--
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/