On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:52:02PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:03:29PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> > Thanks for taking a look at it ;-)
>>
>> I rather appriciate it.
>>
>> > > > @@ -5005,7 +5003,7 @@ static int commit_xhlock(struct cross_lock *xlock, struct hist_lock *xhlock)
>> > > > static void commit_xhlocks(struct cross_lock *xlock)
>> > > > {
>> > > > unsigned int cur = current->xhlock_idx;
>> > > > - unsigned int prev_hist_id = xhlock(cur).hist_id;
>> > > > + unsigned int prev_hist_id = cur + 1;
>> > >
>> > > I should have named it another. Could you suggest a better one?
>> > >
>> >
>> > I think "prev" is fine, because I thought the "previous" means the
>> > xhlock item we visit _previously_.
>> >
>> > > > unsigned int i;
>> > > >
>> > > > if (!graph_lock())
>> > > > @@ -5030,7 +5028,7 @@ static void commit_xhlocks(struct cross_lock *xlock)
>> > > > * hist_id than the following one, which is impossible
>> > > > * otherwise.
>> > >
>> > > Or we need to modify the comment so that the word 'prev' does not make
>> > > readers confused. It was my mistake.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I think the comment needs some help, but before you do it, could you
>> > have another look at what Peter proposed previously? Note you have a
>> > same_context_xhlock() check in the commit_xhlocks(), so the your
>> > previous overwrite case actually could be detected, I think.
>>
>> What is the previous overwrite case?
>>
>> ppppppppppwwwwwwwwwwwwiiiiiiiii
>> iiiiiiiiiiiiiii................
>>
>> Do you mean this one? I missed the check of same_context_xhlock(). Yes,
>> peterz's suggestion also seems to work.
>>
>> > However, one thing may not be detected is this case:
>> >
>> > ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppwwwwwwww
>> > wrapped > wwwwwww
>>
>> To be honest, I think your suggestion is more natual, with which this
>> case would be also covered.
>>
>> >
>> > where p: process and w: worker.
>> >
>> > , because p and w are in the same task_irq_context(). I discussed this
>> > with Peter yesterday, and he has a good idea: unconditionally do a reset
>> > on the ring buffer whenever we do a crossrelease_hist_end(XHLOCK_PROC).
>
> Ah, ok. You meant 'whenever _process_ context exit'.
>
> I need more time to be sure, but anyway for now it seems to work with
> giving up some chances for remaining xhlocks.
>
> But, I am not sure if it's still true even in future and the code can be
> maintained easily. I think your approach is natural and neat enough for
> that purpose. What problem exists with yours?
Let me list up the possible approaches:
0. Byungchul's approach
1. Boqun's approach
2. Peterz's approach
3. Reset on process exit
I like Boqun's approach most but, _whatever_. It's ok if it solves the problem.
The last one is not bad when it is used for syscall exit, but we have to give
up valid dependencies unnecessarily in other cases. And I think Peterz's
approach should be modified a bit to make it work neatly, like:
crossrelease_hist_end(...)
{
...
invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx_max));
for (c = 0; c < XHLOCK_CXT_NR; c++)
if ((cur->xhlock_idx_max - cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c]) >=
MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c]));
...
}
And then Peterz's approach can also work, I think.
---
Thanks,
Byungchul
--
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>
