[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHCjK8OOhmxTbKu0@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 20:55:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-RT-Users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] mm/page_alloc: Convert per-cpu list protection to
local_lock
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:32:56PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> That said, there are some curious users already.
> fs/squashfs/decompressor_multi_percpu.c looks like it always uses the
> local_lock in CPU 0's per-cpu structure instead of stabilising a per-cpu
> pointer.
I'm not sure how you read that.
You're talking about this:
local_lock(&msblk->stream->lock);
right? Note that msblk->stream is a per-cpu pointer, so
&msblk->stream->lock is that same per-cpu pointer with an offset on.
The whole think relies on:
&per_cpu_ptr(msblk->stream, cpu)->lock == per_cpu_ptr(&msblk->stream->lock, cpu)
Which is true because the lhs:
(local_lock_t *)((msblk->stream + per_cpu_offset(cpu)) + offsetof(struct squashfs_stream, lock))
and the rhs:
(local_lock_t *)((msblk->stream + offsetof(struct squashfs_stream, lock)) + per_cpu_offset(cpu))
are identical, because addition is associative.
> drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c appears to do the same although for
> at least one of the zcomp_stream_get() callers, the CPU is pinned for
> other reasons (bit spin lock held). I think it happens to work anyway
> but it's weird and I'm not a fan.
Same thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists