On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:24 AM Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:30:12AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

quoted

For memory ordering (which Johannes also pointed out) the critical point is:

times[cpu] += delta           | if g->polling:
smp_wmb()                     |   g->polling = polling = 0
cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1)     |   smp_rmb()
                              |   delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)

So that hotpath writes to times[] then g->polling and slowpath reads
g->polling then times[]. cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, so we can
drop smp_wmb(). Something like this:

times[cpu] += delta           | if g->polling:
cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1)     |   g->polling = polling = 0
                              |   smp_rmb()
                              |   delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)

Would that address your concern about ordering?

cmpxchg() implies smp_mb() before and after, so the smp_wmb() on the
left column is superfluous.

Should I keep it in the comments to make it obvious and add a note
about implicit barriers being the reason we don't call smp_mb() in the
code explicitly?

I'd keep 'em out if they aren't actually in the code. But I'd switch

	delta = times[*]

in this comment to to

	get_recent_times() // implies smp_mb()

Actually, I might have been mistaken about this. The seqcount locking
does an smp_rmb() and an smp_wmb(), and that orders reads and writes
respectively, but doesn't necessarily order reads against writes.

So I think we need an explicit smp_mb() after all.