[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230104133459.5yaflf3yicpmhbbh@ava.usersys.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 13:34:59 +0000
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.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 Fri 2022-12-30 14:21 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.
Hi Frederic,
Agreed.
Kind regards,
--
Aaron Tomlin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists