On 07-Mar 13:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:47:11AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 06-Mar 20:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:01:50PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > > +struct util_est {
> > > > + unsigned int enqueued;
> > > > + unsigned int ewma;
> > > > +#define UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT 2
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > > + ue = READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est);
> > >
> > > > + WRITE_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est, ue);
> > >
> > > That is actually quite dodgy... and relies on the fact that we have the
> > > 8 byte case in __write_once_size() and __read_once_size()
> > > unconditionally. It then further relies on the compiler DTRT for 32bit
> > > platforms, which is generating 2 32bit loads/stores.
> > >
> > > The advantage is of course that it will use single u64 loads/stores
> > > where available.
> >
> > Yes, that's mainly an "optimization" for 64bit targets... but perhaps
> > the benefits are negligible.
> >
> > Do you prefer to keep more "under control" the generated code by using
> > two {READ,WRITE}_ONCEs?
Any specific preference on this previous point?
> > IMO here we can also go with just the WRITE_ONCEs. I don't see a case
> > for the compiler to mangle load/store. While the WRITE_ONCE are still
> > required to sync with non rq-lock serialized code.
> > But... maybe I'm missing something... ?
>
> I'm not sure we rely on READ/WRITE_ONCE() of 64bit variables on 32bit
> targets to be sane anywhere else (we could be, I just dont know).
My understating is that, since here we are in an rq-lock protected
section, and only in this section we can write these vars, then the
load is a dependency for the store and the compiler cannot screw up...
> I suspect it all works as expected... but its a tad tricky.
Then let's keep them for the time being... meanwhile I try to get
some more "internal" feedback before next posting.
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
