On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:12:33 -0700
Jason Low <jason.l...@hp.com> wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 19:59 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:09:44 -0700
> > Jason Low <jason.l...@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > @@ -2088,7 +2088,7 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int mem_node,
> > > int pages, int flags)
> > >
> > > static void reset_ptenuma_scan(struct task_struct *p)
> > > {
> > > - ACCESS_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq)++;
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq) + 1);
> >
> > Is the READ_ONCE() inside the WRITE_ONCE() really necessary?
>
> Yeah, I think so to be safe, otherwise, the access of
> p->mm->numa_scan_seq in the 2nd parameter doesn't have the volatile
> cast.
You are correct. Now I'm thinking that the WRITE_ONCE() is not needed,
and just a:
p->mm->numa_scan_seq = READ_ONCE(p->numa_scan_seq) + 1;
Can be done. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around why this is
needed here. Comments would have been really helpful. We should make
all READ_ONCE() WRITE_ONCE and obsolete ACCESS_ONCE() have mandatory
comments just like we do with memory barriers.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
