On 2016/12/5 16:50, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 12/05/2016 09:31 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> 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).
>>
>
> Reading the code again, you might be right, but I think your patch description
> is somewhat misleading. I think the problem is that old_flags and flags are
> not necessarily the same.
>
> So what about
>
> a compiler could re-read "old_flags" from the memory location after reading
> and calculation "flags" and passes a newer value into the cmpxchg making
> the comparison succeed while it should actually fail.
>
Hi Christian,
I'll resend v2, thanks!
>
>
--
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>