Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] psi: introduce psi monitor

From: Johannes Weiner
Date: Wed Jan 16 2019 - 14:17:34 EST


On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:24 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:30:12AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > For memory ordering (which Johannes also pointed out) the critical point is:
> > >
> > > times[cpu] += delta | if g->polling:
> > > smp_wmb() | g->polling = polling = 0
> > > cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1) | smp_rmb()
> > > | delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
> > >
> > > So that hotpath writes to times[] then g->polling and slowpath reads
> > > g->polling then times[]. cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, so we can
> > > drop smp_wmb(). Something like this:
> > >
> > > times[cpu] += delta | if g->polling:
> > > cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1) | g->polling = polling = 0
> > > | smp_rmb()
> > > | delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
> > >
> > > Would that address your concern about ordering?
> >
> > cmpxchg() implies smp_mb() before and after, so the smp_wmb() on the
> > left column is superfluous.
>
> Should I keep it in the comments to make it obvious and add a note
> about implicit barriers being the reason we don't call smp_mb() in the
> code explicitly?

I'd keep 'em out if they aren't actually in the code. But I'd switch

delta = times[*]

in this comment to to

get_recent_times() // implies smp_mb()

or something to make the ordering a bit more visible.

And also add a comment to the actual cmpxchg() in the code directly
that says that we rely on the implied ordering and that it pairs with
the smp_mb() in the slowpath; add a similar comment to the smp_mb().

> > Also, you probably want to use atomic_t for g->polling, because we
> > (sadly) have architectures where regular stores and atomic ops don't
> > work 'right'.
>
> Oh, I see. Will do. Thanks!

Yikes, that's news to me too. Good to know.