On Tuesday 02 Oct 2018 at 15:48:57 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +/**
> + * em_cpu_get() - Return the performance domain for a CPU
> + * @cpu : CPU to find the performance domain for
> + *
> + * Return: the performance domain to which 'cpu' belongs, or NULL if it
> doesn't
> + * exist.
> + */
> +struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu)
> +{
> + return READ_ONCE(per_cpu(em_data, cpu));
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_cpu_get);
>
> But your read side doesn't take, not is required to take em_pd_mutex.
>
> At that point, the mutex_unlock() doesn't guarantee anything.
>
> A CPU observing the em_data store, doesn't need to observe the store
> that filled the data structure it points to.
Right but even if I add the smp_store_release(), I can still have a
CPU observing em_data while another is in the process of updating it.
So, if smp_store_release() doesn't guarantee that readers will see a
complete update, do I actually get something interesting from it ?
(That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually wondering :-)
Thanks,
Quentin
