Re: [PATCH] sys_time-speedup-small-cleanup

[Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>]

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> on top of sys_time-speedup.patch
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >  asmlinkage long sys_time(time_t __user * tloc)
> >  {
> > -	time_t i;
> > -	struct timeval tv;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We read xtime.tv_sec atomically - it's updated
> > +	 * atomically by update_wall_time(), so no need to
> > +	 * even read-lock the xtime seqlock:
> > +	 */
> > +	time_t i = xtime.tv_sec;
> >  
> > -	do_gettimeofday(&tv);
> > -	i = tv.tv_sec;
> > +	smp_rmb(); /* sys_time() results are coherent */
>
> Why do we need this barrier? My guess it is needed to prevent
> the reading of xtime.tv_sec twice, yes? In that case a simple
> barrier() should be enough.

Without the smp_rmb, you can potentially have a situation where one CPU is still 
reading an old value from cache while another has the new value.  It's generally 
a rather small race window on most architectures, but very bad things can happen 
if time ever goes backwards, so it's worth the overhead of maintaining coherence 
on smp.

	-- Chris

> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
>
> --- t/kernel/time.c~	2007-06-26 16:28:59.000000000 +0400
> +++ t/kernel/time.c	2007-06-26 16:32:09.000000000 +0400
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_time(time_t __user *
>  	 */
>  	time_t i = xtime.tv_sec;
>  
> -	smp_rmb(); /* sys_time() results are coherent */
> +	barrier(); /* sys_time() results are coherent */
>  
>  	if (tloc) {
>  		if (put_user(i, tloc))
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/