On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:55:48PM +0100, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > > Can this be allocated in an interrupt context?
> > >
> > > And I am not sure how local_t relates to that? Percpu counters can be used
> > > in an interrupt context without the overhead of the address calculations
> > > that are required by a local_t.
> >
> > As I understand the patch, this counts the number of partially free slabs.
> > So if we start to free an object from a completely full slab in process
> > context, as "load x, add one to x, store x" and take an interrupt
> > between loading x and adding one to x, that interrupt handler might
> > free a different object from another completely full slab. that would
> > also load the same x, add one to it and store x, but then the process
> > context would add one to the old x, overwriting the updated value from
> > interrupt context.
>
> this_cpu operations are "atomic" vs. preemption but on some platforms not
> vs interrupts. That could be an issue in kmem_cache_free(). This would
> need a modification to the relevant this_cpu ops so that interrupts are
> disabled on those platforms.
Hmmmm ... re-reading the documentation, it says that this_cpu_x is
atomic against interrupts:
These operations can be used without worrying about
preemption and interrupts::
[...]
this_cpu_add(pcp, val)
this_cpu_inc(pcp)
...
