[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5368F4CA.7060002@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:42:18 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] mm: page_alloc: Use word-based accesses for get/set
pageblock bitmaps
On 05/06/2014 11:13 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 02:40:38PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> @@ -62,11 +65,35 @@ extern int pageblock_order;
>>> /* Forward declaration */
>>> struct page;
>>>
>>> +unsigned long get_pageblock_flags_mask(struct page *page,
>>> + unsigned long end_bitidx,
>>> + unsigned long nr_flag_bits,
>>> + unsigned long mask);
>>> +void set_pageblock_flags_mask(struct page *page,
>>> + unsigned long flags,
>>> + unsigned long end_bitidx,
>>> + unsigned long nr_flag_bits,
>>> + unsigned long mask);
>>> +
>>
>> The nr_flag_bits parameter is not used anymore and can be dropped.
>>
>
> Fixed
>
>>> /* Declarations for getting and setting flags. See mm/page_alloc.c */
>>> -unsigned long get_pageblock_flags_group(struct page *page,
>>> - int start_bitidx, int end_bitidx);
>>> -void set_pageblock_flags_group(struct page *page, unsigned long flags,
>>> - int start_bitidx, int end_bitidx);
>>> +static inline unsigned long get_pageblock_flags_group(struct page *page,
>>> + int start_bitidx, int end_bitidx)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long nr_flag_bits = end_bitidx - start_bitidx + 1;
>>> + unsigned long mask = (1 << nr_flag_bits) - 1;
>>> +
>>> + return get_pageblock_flags_mask(page, end_bitidx, nr_flag_bits, mask);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline void set_pageblock_flags_group(struct page *page,
>>> + unsigned long flags,
>>> + int start_bitidx, int end_bitidx)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long nr_flag_bits = end_bitidx - start_bitidx + 1;
>>> + unsigned long mask = (1 << nr_flag_bits) - 1;
>>> +
>>> + set_pageblock_flags_mask(page, flags, end_bitidx, nr_flag_bits, mask);
>>> +}
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPACTION
>>> #define get_pageblock_skip(page) \
>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> index dc123ff..f393b0e 100644
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -6032,53 +6032,64 @@ static inline int pfn_to_bitidx(struct zone *zone, unsigned long pfn)
>>> * @end_bitidx: The last bit of interest
>>> * returns pageblock_bits flags
>>> */
>>> -unsigned long get_pageblock_flags_group(struct page *page,
>>> - int start_bitidx, int end_bitidx)
>>> +unsigned long get_pageblock_flags_mask(struct page *page,
>>> + unsigned long end_bitidx,
>>> + unsigned long nr_flag_bits,
>>> + unsigned long mask)
>>> {
>>> struct zone *zone;
>>> unsigned long *bitmap;
>>> - unsigned long pfn, bitidx;
>>> - unsigned long flags = 0;
>>> - unsigned long value = 1;
>>> + unsigned long pfn, bitidx, word_bitidx;
>>> + unsigned long word;
>>>
>>> zone = page_zone(page);
>>> pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>>> bitmap = get_pageblock_bitmap(zone, pfn);
>>> bitidx = pfn_to_bitidx(zone, pfn);
>>> + word_bitidx = bitidx / BITS_PER_LONG;
>>> + bitidx &= (BITS_PER_LONG-1);
>>>
>>> - for (; start_bitidx <= end_bitidx; start_bitidx++, value <<= 1)
>>> - if (test_bit(bitidx + start_bitidx, bitmap))
>>> - flags |= value;
>>> -
>>> - return flags;
>>> + word = bitmap[word_bitidx];
>>
>> I wonder if on some architecture this may result in inconsistent
>> word when racing with set(), i.e. cmpxchg? We need consistency at
>> least on the granularity of byte to prevent the problem with bogus
>> migratetype values being read.
>>fix:
>
> The number of bits align on the byte boundary so I do not think there is
> a problem there. There is a BUILD_BUG_ON check in set_pageblock_flags_mask
> in case this changes so it can be revisited if necessary.
I was wondering about hardware guarantees in that case (e.g. consistency
at least on the granularity of byte when a simple memory read races with
write) but after some discussion in the office I understand that
hardware without such guarantees wouldn't be able to run Linux anyway :)
Still I wonder if ACCESS_ONCE would be safer in the 'word' variable
assignment to protect against compiler trying to be too smart?
Anyway with the nr_flag_bits removed:
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>>> + bitidx += end_bitidx;
>>> + return (word >> (BITS_PER_LONG - bitidx - 1)) & mask;
>>
>> Yes that looks correct to me, bits don't seem to overlap anymore.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists