On Fri 23-06-17 12:12:54, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> get_cpu_var() disables preemption and returns the per-CPU version of the
> variable. Disabling preemption is useful to ensure atomic access to the
> variable within the critical section.
> In this case however, after the per-CPU version of the variable is
> obtained the ->free_lock is acquired. For that reason it seems the raw
> accessor could be used. It only seems that ->slots_ret should be
> retested (because with disabled preemption this variable can not be set
> to NULL otherwise).
The changelog doesn't explain, why does this change matter. Disabling
preemption shortly before taking a spinlock shouldn't make much
difference. I suspect you care because of RT, right? In that case spell
that in the changelog and explain why it matters.
Other than hat the patch looks good to me.
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/swap_slots.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swap_slots.c b/mm/swap_slots.c
> index 58f6c78f1dad..51c304477482 100644
> --- a/mm/swap_slots.c
> +++ b/mm/swap_slots.c
> @@ -272,11 +272,11 @@ int free_swap_slot(swp_entry_t entry)
> {
> struct swap_slots_cache *cache;
>
> - cache = &get_cpu_var(swp_slots);
> + cache = raw_cpu_ptr(&swp_slots);
> if (use_swap_slot_cache && cache->slots_ret) {
> spin_lock_irq(&cache->free_lock);
> /* Swap slots cache may be deactivated before acquiring lock */
> - if (!use_swap_slot_cache) {
> + if (!use_swap_slot_cache || !cache->slots_ret) {
> spin_unlock_irq(&cache->free_lock);
> goto direct_free;
> }
> @@ -296,7 +296,6 @@ int free_swap_slot(swp_entry_t entry)
> direct_free:
> swapcache_free_entries(&entry, 1);
> }
> - put_cpu_var(swp_slots);
>
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.13.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
