[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOAebxssDZvLyHMCiYieaFMvC6S+CSpN76C_VP6zdM_UvC8wKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:58:28 -0500
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: initialize pages on demand during boot
>>
>> It would be nice to have a little comment explaining why READ_ONCE was
>> needed.
>>
>> Would it still be needed if this code was moved into the locked region?
>
>
> No, we would need to use READ_ONCE() if we grabbed deferred_zone_grow_lock
> before this code. In fact I do not even think we strictly need READ_ONCE()
> here, as it is a single load anyway. But, because we are outside of the
> lock, and we want to quickly fetch the data with a single load, I think it
> makes sense to emphasize it using READ_ONCE() without expected compiler to
> simply do the write thing for us.
>
>
Correction:
No, we would NOT need ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists