From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: smtp.codeaurora.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="fyZ9Ya0F" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org C85C160290 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752316AbeFFPCN (ORCPT + 25 others); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:02:13 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:49286 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752021AbeFFPCL (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:02:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 17:02:03 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar , Eduardo Valentin , Javi Merino , Leo Yan , Kevin Wangtao , Vincent Guittot , Rui Zhang , Daniel Thompson , "open list:POWER MANAGEMENT CORE" Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework Message-ID: <20180606150203.GE12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1528190208-22915-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20180606122357.GN12258@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <22f5cf0b-049e-7938-55f6-4b4b154f8389@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <22f5cf0b-049e-7938-55f6-4b4b154f8389@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:42:08PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 06/06/2018 14:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:16:40AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> + atomic_t idle_duration_ms; > >> + atomic_t run_duration_ms; > > > >> + idle_duration_ms = atomic_read(&ii_dev->idle_duration_ms); > > > >> + run_duration_ms = atomic_read(&ii_dev->run_duration_ms); > > > >> + atomic_set(&ii_dev->run_duration_ms, run_duration_ms); > >> + atomic_set(&ii_dev->idle_duration_ms, idle_duration_ms); > > > >> + *run_duration_ms = atomic_read(&ii_dev->run_duration_ms); > >> + *idle_duration_ms = atomic_read(&ii_dev->idle_duration_ms); > > > >> + if (!atomic_read(&ii_dev->idle_duration_ms)) > > > >> + if (!atomic_read(&ii_dev->run_duration_ms)) > > > > What is the point of atomic_t here ?! > > idle_duration and run_duration can be changed from different places at > the same time. The atomic is here to ensure the read/write are consistent. > > Do you think it is pointless ? Yes, atomic_read() / atomic_set() are no more atomic than READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE().