Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/core: switch struct rq->nr_iowait to a normal int

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, Feb 29 2024 at 10:19, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/29/24 9:53 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 28 2024 at 12:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> In 3 of the 4 spots where we modify rq->nr_iowait we already hold the
>> 
>> We modify something and hold locks? It's documented that changelogs
>> should not impersonate code. It simply does not make any sense.
>
> Agree it doesn't read that well... It's meant to say that we already
> hold the rq lock in 3 of the 4 spots, hence using atomic_inc/dec is
> pointless for those cases.

That and the 'we'. Write it neutral.

The accounting of rq::nr_iowait is using an atomic_t but 3 out of 4
places hold runqueue lock already. ....

So but I just noticed that there is actually an issue with this:

>  unsigned int nr_iowait_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
> -	return atomic_read(&cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_iowait);
> +	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +
> +	return rq->nr_iowait - atomic_read(&rq->nr_iowait_remote);

The access to rq->nr_iowait is not protected by the runqueue lock and
therefore a data race when @cpu is not the current CPU.

This needs to be properly annotated and explained why it does not
matter.

So s/Reviewed-by/Un-Reviewed-by/

Though thinking about it some more. Is this split a real benefit over
always using the atomic? Do you have numbers to show?

Thanks,

        tglx