On 11/7/18 9:20 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 06-11-18 21:51:47, Arun KS wrote: Hi, there's typo in subject: evaluvations -> evaluations. However, "fix" is also misleading (more below), so I'd suggest something like: mm: reference totalram_pages and managed_pages once per function >> This patch is in preparation to a later patch which converts totalram_pages >> and zone->managed_pages to atomic variables. This patch does not introduce >> any functional changes. > > I forgot to comment on this one. The patch makes a lot of sense. But I > would be little bit more conservative and won't claim "no functional > changes". As things stand now multiple reads in the same function are > racy (without holding the lock). I do not see any example of an > obviously harmful case but claiming the above is too strong of a > statement. I would simply go with something like "Please note that > re-reading the value might lead to a different value and as such it > could lead to unexpected behavior. There are no known bugs as a result > of the current code but it is better to prevent from them in principle." However, the new code doesn't use READ_ONCE(), so the compiler is free to read the value multiple times, and before the patch it was free to read it just once, as the variables are not volatile. So strictly speaking this is indeed not a functional change (if compiler decides differently based on the patch, it's an implementation detail). So even in my suggested subject above, 'reference' is meant as a source code reference, not really a memory read reference. Couldn't think of a better word though.
