linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/9] memcg: replace stats_flush

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALvZod4Gsngc6MjXdk4s5+ePVjsgcVppdRmsQovN6gSrxzdbfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 12:28:00 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/9] memcg: replace stats_flush_lock with an atomic

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:53 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> > > +     if (atomic_xchg(&stats_flush_ongoing, 1))
> >
> > Have you profiled this? I wonder if we should replace the above with
> >
> >         if (atomic_read(&stats_flush_ongoing) || atomic_xchg(&stats_flush_ongoing, 1))
>
> I profiled the entire series with perf and I haven't noticed a notable
> difference between before and after the patch series -- but maybe some
> specific access patterns cause a regression, not sure.
>
> Does an atomic_cmpxchg() satisfy the same purpose? it's easier to read
> / more concise I guess.
>
> Something like
>
>     if (atomic_cmpxchg(&stats_flush_ongoing, 0, 1))
>
> WDYT?
>

No, I don't think cmpxchg will be any different from xchg(). On x86,
the cmpxchg will always write to stats_flush_ongoing and depending on
the comparison result, it will either be 0 or 1 here.

If you see the implementation of queued_spin_trylock(), it does the
same as well.