From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com>,
mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
luca.abeni@santannapisa.it, bristot@redhat.com,
dvyukov@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, vpillai@digitalocean.com,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/13] sched/deadline: Impose global limits on sched_attr::sched_period
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:35:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190904143535.GD240514@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190904141109.4v6o2cxklpdlmldb@willie-the-truck>
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:24:18AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 01:30:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 06:16:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:16:23 +0200
> > > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > in sched_dl_period_handler(). And do:
> > > > >
> > > > > + preempt_disable();
> > > > > max = (u64)READ_ONCE(sysctl_sched_dl_period_max) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > > > > min = (u64)READ_ONCE(sysctl_sched_dl_period_min) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > > > > + preempt_enable();
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I'm curious. Doesn't the preempt_disable/enable() also add
> > > > compiler barriers which would remove the need for the READ_ONCE()s here?
> > >
> > > They do add compiler barriers; but they do not avoid the compiler
> > > tearing stuff up.
> >
> > Neither does WRITE_ONCE() on some possibly buggy but currently circulating
> > compilers :(
>
> Hmm. The example above is using READ_ONCE, which is a different kettle of
> frogs.
True. But, I equally worry about all *-tearing frog kettles ;-)
> > As Will said in:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190821103200.kpufwtviqhpbuv2n@willie-the-truck/
> >
> > void bar(u64 *x)
> > {
> > *(volatile u64 *)x = 0xabcdef10abcdef10;
> > }
> >
> > gives:
> >
> > bar:
> > mov w1, 61200
> > movk w1, 0xabcd, lsl 16
> > str w1, [x0]
> > str w1, [x0, 4]
> > ret
> >
> > Speaking of which, Will, is there a plan to have compiler folks address this
> > tearing issue and are bugs filed somewhere? I believe aarch64 gcc is buggy,
> > and clang is better but is still buggy?
>
> Well, it depends on your point of view. Personally, I think tearing a
> volatile access (e.g. WRITE_ONCE) is buggy and it seems as though the GCC
> developers agree:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg01500.html
>
> so it's likely this will be fixed for AArch64 GCC. I couldn't persuade
> clang to break the volatile case, so think we're good there too.
Glad to know that GCC folks are looking into the issue.
Sorry if this is getting a bit off-topic. Also does the aarch64 clang doing
the "memset folding" issue, also need to be looked into?
You had mentioned it in the same thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190821103200.kpufwtviqhpbuv2n@willie-the-truck/
Or, does WRITE_ONCE() resolve such memset store-merging?
> For the non-volatile case, I don't actually consider it to be a bug,
> although I sympathise with the desire to avoid a retrospective tree-wide
> sweep adding random WRITE_ONCE invocations to stores that look like they
> might be concurrent. In other words, I think I'd suggest:
>
> * The use of WRITE_ONCE in new code (probably with a comment justifying it)
> * The introduction of WRITE_ONCE to existing code where it can be shown to
> be fixing a real bug (e.g. by demonstrating that a compiler actually
> gets it wrong)
>
> For the /vast/ majority of cases, the compiler will do the right thing
> even without WRITE_ONCE, simply because that's going to be the most
> performant choice as well.
Thanks for the thoughts. They seem to be reasonable to me.
thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-04 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-26 14:54 [RFC][PATCH 00/13] SCHED_DEADLINE server infrastructure Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/13] sched/deadline: Impose global limits on sched_attr::sched_period Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 8:57 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-29 11:45 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2019-08-02 17:21 ` Alessio Balsini
2019-08-05 11:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-22 12:29 ` Alessio Balsini
2019-08-22 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 14:41 ` Alessio Balsini
2019-09-02 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-04 10:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-09-04 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-04 13:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-04 14:11 ` Will Deacon
2019-09-04 14:35 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2019-09-04 15:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-23 17:17 ` [PATCH 4.4 4.9 4.14] loop: Add LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO to compat ioctl Alessio Balsini
2019-10-23 17:22 ` Alessio Balsini
2019-10-25 0:17 ` Sasha Levin
2020-05-20 18:38 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/13] sched/deadline: Impose global limits on sched_attr::sched_period Juri Lelli
2020-05-21 13:45 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2020-06-16 12:21 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/13] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-30 13:16 ` Phil Auld
2019-07-30 13:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/13] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/13] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 9:25 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-29 11:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 11:27 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-29 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 13:17 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-29 14:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/13] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/13] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/13] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/13] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/13] sched: Unify runtime accounting across classes Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/13] sched/deadline: Collect sched_dl_entity initialization Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/13] sched/deadline: Move bandwidth accounting into {en,de}queue_dl_entity Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/13] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-07 16:31 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-08 6:52 ` Juri Lelli
2019-08-08 7:52 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-08 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-08 8:11 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-08 8:46 ` Juri Lelli
2019-08-08 8:57 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-08 9:27 ` Juri Lelli
2019-08-08 9:45 ` Juri Lelli
2019-08-30 11:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-06 9:36 ` Juri Lelli
2019-08-08 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-09 7:13 ` Juri Lelli
2019-08-08 6:59 ` Juri Lelli
2019-08-09 9:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-09 12:16 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-26 14:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/13] sched/fair: Add trivial fair server Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 20:01 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/13] SCHED_DEADLINE server infrastructure luca abeni
2019-09-03 14:27 ` Alessio Balsini
2019-09-04 10:50 ` Juri Lelli
2019-09-04 11:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190904143535.GD240514@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=balsini@android.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).