[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC 4/5] sched/topology: Annonate RCU pointers properly
Peter Zijlstra
peterz at infradead.org
Thu Feb 21 15:29:44 UTC 2019
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:10:57AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:49:41AM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >
> > > Also replace rcu_assign_pointer call on rq->sd with WRITE_ONCE. This
> > > should be sufficient for the rq->sd initialization.
> >
> > > @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *sd, struct root_domain *rd, int cpu)
> > >
> > > rq_attach_root(rq, rd);
> > > tmp = rq->sd;
> > > - rcu_assign_pointer(rq->sd, sd);
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(rq->sd, sd);
> > > dirty_sched_domain_sysctl(cpu);
> > > destroy_sched_domains(tmp);
> >
> > Where did the RELEASE barrier go?
> >
> > That was a publish operation, now it is not.
>
> Funny thing is, initially I had written this patch with smp_store_release()
> instead of WRITE_ONCE, but checkpatch complaints with that since it needs a
> comment on top of it, and I wasn't sure if RELEASE barrier was the intent of
> using rcu_assign_pointer (all the more reason to replace it with something
> more explicit).
>
> I will replace it with the following and resubmit it then:
>
> /* Release barrier */
> smp_store_release(&rq->sd, sd);
>
> Or do we want to just drop the "Release barrier" comment and live with the
> checkpatch warning?
How about we keep using rcu_assign_pointer(), the whole sched domain
tree is under rcu; peruse that destroy_sched_domains() function for
instance.
Also check how for_each_domain() uses rcu_dereference().
More information about the Intel-wired-lan
mailing list