On 12/05/2016 09:23 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> By reading the code, I find the following code maybe optimized by
> compiler, maybe page->flags and old_flags use the same register,
> so use ACCESS_ONCE in page_cpupid_xchg_last() to fix the problem.
please use READ_ONCE instead of ACCESS_ONCE for future patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/mmzone.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmzone.c b/mm/mmzone.c
> index 5652be8..e0b698e 100644
> --- a/mm/mmzone.c
> +++ b/mm/mmzone.c
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ int page_cpupid_xchg_last(struct page *page, int cpupid)
> int last_cpupid;
>
> do {
> - old_flags = flags = page->flags;
> + old_flags = flags = ACCESS_ONCE(page->flags);
> last_cpupid = page_cpupid_last(page);
>
> flags &= ~(LAST_CPUPID_MASK << LAST_CPUPID_PGSHIFT);
I dont thing that this is actually a problem. The code below does
} while (unlikely(cmpxchg(&page->flags, old_flags, flags) != old_flags))
and the cmpxchg should be an atomic op that should already take care of everything
(page->flags is passed as a pointer).
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>