[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221230132132.GA186035@lothringen>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:21:32 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: atomlin@...mlin.com, cl@...ux.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, pauld@...hat.com,
neelx@...hat.com, oleksandr@...alenko.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/6] mm/vmstat: Use vmstat_dirty to track
CPU-specific vmstat discrepancies
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 09:11:39AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> @@ -606,6 +608,7 @@ static inline void mod_zone_state(struct
>
> if (z)
> zone_page_state_add(z, zone, item);
> + vmstat_mark_dirty();
> }
>
> void mod_zone_page_state(struct zone *zone, enum zone_stat_item item,
> @@ -674,6 +677,7 @@ static inline void mod_node_state(struct
>
> if (z)
> node_page_state_add(z, pgdat, item);
> + vmstat_mark_dirty();
Looking at this further, about the two above chunks, there is a risk to
mark the wrong CPU dirty because those functions are preemptible and rely
on this_cpu_cmpxchg() to deal with preemption.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists