[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180723140420.GY2458@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:04:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/19] mm/migrate: Use xchg instead of spinlock
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:20:32AM -0700, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > If you maybe write that like:
> >
> > if (time_after(jiffies, next_window) &&
> > xchg(&pgdat->numabalancing_migrate_nr_pages, 0UL)) {
> >
> > do {
> > next_window += interval;
> > } while (unlikely(time_after(jiffies, next_window)));
> >
> > WRITE_ONCE(pgdat->numabalancing_migrate_next_window, next_window);
> > }
> >
> > Then you avoid an indent level and line-wrap, resulting imo easier to
> > read code.
> >
>
> Okay will do.
FWIW, that code seems to rely on @nr_pages != 0, otherwise you can have
the xchg fail even though time_after is true.
Probably not a problem, but it is a semantic change vs the spinlock.
Also, the spinlock thing could probably have changed to a trylock and
you'd have seens similar 'gains' I suppose.
Another difference vs the lock+unlock is that you lost the release
ordering. Again, probably not a big deal, but it does make the whole
things a little dodgy.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists