On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:17:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello, Christoph,
>
> I have a patch that currently uses __this_cpu_inc_return() to increment a
> per-CPU variable, but without preemption disabled. Of course, given that
> preemption is enabled, it might well end up picking up one CPU's counter,
> adding one to it, then storing the result into some other CPU's counter.
> But this is OK, the test can be probabilistic. And when I run this
> against v3.14 and earlier, it works fine.
>
> But now there is 188a81409ff7 (percpu: add preemption checks to
> __this_cpu ops), which gives me lots of splats.
>
> My current admittedly crude workaround is as follows:
>
> static inline bool rcu_should_resched(void)
> {
> int t;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> preempt_disable();
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
> t = __this_cpu_read(rcu_cond_resched_count) + 1;
> if (t < RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM) {
> __this_cpu_write(rcu_cond_resched_count, t);
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> preempt_enable();
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
> return false;
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> preempt_enable();
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
> return true;
> }
>
> This is arguably better than the original __this_cpu_read() because it
> avoids overflow, but I thought I should check to see if there was some
> better way to do this.
you could use raw_cpu_{read,write}(). But note that without the
unconditional preempt_disable() in there your code can read a different
rcu_cond_resched_count than it writes.
So I think you very much want that preempt_disable().
--
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/
