[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAD05KayfUwZQ4Vh@tpad>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 16:11:32 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] mm/vmstat: switch counter modification to
cmpxchg
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:20:49AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:47:35AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > So it will be:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL
> > mod_zone_page_state
> > inc_zone_page_state
> > dec_zone_page_state
> > mod_node_page_state
> > inc_node_page_state
> > dec_node_page_state
> > __mod_zone_page_state (new function, calls mod_zone_page_state).
> > __mod_node_page_state (new function, calls mod_node_page_state).
> > __inc_zone_page_state
> > __inc_node_page_state
> > __dec_zone_page_state
> > __dec_node_page_state
> > #else
> > __mod_zone_page_state (old, shared function for both CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL and not)
> > __mod_node_page_state
> > __inc_zone_page_state
> > __inc_node_page_state
> > __dec_zone_page_state
> > __dec_node_page_state
> > mod_zone_page_state
> > inc_zone_page_state
> > dec_zone_page_state
> > mod_node_page_state
> > inc_node_page_state
> > dec_node_page_state
> > #endif
> >
> > Any suggestion on how to split this into multiple patchsets for easier
> > reviewing? (can't think of anything obvious).
>
> I figured this out before saw this, but it did take me some time to read
> carefully into the code base.. maybe it'll be a good idea to mention
> something like above in the commit message to ease future reviewers (and
> more likelyhood to attract the experts to start chim in)?
>
> One fundamental (but maybe another naive.. :) question on this code piece
> (so not directly related to the changeset but maybe it is still..):
>
> AFAICT CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL only means we can do cmpxchg() without
> locking memory bus,
CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL means cmpxchg_local is implemented (that is
cmpxchg which is atomic with respect to local CPU).
LOCK cmpxchg is necessary for cmpxchg to be atomic on SMP.
> however when !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL here we're not
> using non-local version but using preempt_disable_nested() to make sure the
> read is atomic. Does it really worth it? What happens if we use cmpxchg()
> unconditionally, but just use local (e.g. no "LOCK" prefix) version when
> CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL?
Can't use local version of cmpxchg because the vmstat counters are supposed
to be accessed from different CPUs simultaneously (this is the objective
of the patchset):
CPU-0 CPU-1
vmstat_shepherd mod_zone_page_state
xchg location LOCK cmpxchg location
xchg locks memory bus implicitly.
Is this what you are thinking about or did i misunderstood what you
mean?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists