From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1170270AbdDXMwP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:15 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:52204 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933029AbdDXMwJ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:09 -0400
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:52:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt
 balancing logic
Message-ID: <20170424125200.vxfmehm4tpdpeisc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170421224929.1a4bbeec@gandalf.local.home>
 <20170424085154.d6ny6vmbmuaoxiln@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170424084318.2d03700f@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170424084318.2d03700f@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 08:43:18AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:51:54 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > When a CPU schedules in a lower priority task and wants to make sure
> > > overloaded CPUs know about it. It increments the rto_loop_next. Then it does
> > > an atomic_inc_return() on rto_loop_start. If the returned value is not "1",
> > > then it does atomic_dec() on rt_loop_start and returns. If the value is "1",
> > > then it will take the rto_lock to synchronize with a possible IPI being sent
> > > around to the overloaded CPUs.  
> > 
> > > +	start = atomic_inc_return(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);
> > > +	if (start != 1)
> > > +		goto out;  
> > 
> > > +out:
> > > +	atomic_dec(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);  
> > 
> > 
> > Did you just write a very expensive test-and-set trylock?
> 
> Probably. I didn't know we had a generic one. Where is it?
> 

There isn't. What I was getting at though is that something like:

static inline bool rto_start_trylock(atomic_t *v)
{
	int zero = 0;
	return atomic_try_cmpxchg(v, &zero, 1);
}

static void rto_start_unlock(atomic_t *v)
{
	atomic_set_release(v, 0);
}

Is more: clearer, faster and correct.


Clearer as that it better describes what it does, faster as that you
only have a single atomic, and more correct because it does a RELEASE in
the case we care about.