On Tue 23-03-21 09:01:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 08:50:53AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > >> +static inline unsigned long min_hp_count(struct hstate *h, unsigned long count)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + unsigned long min_count;
> > > >> +
> > > >> + min_count = h->resv_huge_pages + h->nr_huge_pages - h->free_huge_pages;
> > > >> + return max(count, min_count);
> > > >
> > > > Just out of curiousity, is compiler allowed to inline this piece of code
> > > > and then cache the value? In other words do we need to make these
> > > > READ_ONCE or otherwise enforce the no-caching behavior?
> > >
> > > I honestly do not know if the compiler is allowed to do that. The
> > > assembly code generated by my compiler does not cache the value, but
> > > that does not guarantee anything. I can add READ_ONCE to make the
> > > function look something like:
> > >
> > > static inline unsigned long min_hp_count(struct hstate *h, unsigned long count)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long min_count;
> > >
> > > min_count = READ_ONCE(h->resv_huge_pages) + READ_ONCE(h->nr_huge_pages)
> > > - READ_ONCE(h->free_huge_pages);
> > > return max(count, min_count);
> > > }
> >
> > Maybe just forcing to never inline the function should be sufficient.
> > This is not a hot path to micro optimize for no function call. But there
> > are much more qualified people on the CC list on this matter who could
> > clarify. Peter?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the code right.
We need to ensure the function is evaluated each time it is called
because it will be used after a lock is dropped and reacquired so
numbers could have changed. The point of wrapping this into a function
is to reduce the code duplication IIUC.
> But inline or not doesn't
> matter, LTO completely ruins that game. Just like if it was a static
> function, then the compiler is free to inline it, even if the function
> lacks an inline attribute.
OK
> Basically, without READ_ONCE() the compiler is allowed to entirely elide
> the load (and use a previous load), or to duplicate the load and do it
> again later (reaching a different result).
>
> Similarly, the compiler is allowed to byte-wise load the variable in any
> random order and re-assemble.
>
> If any of that is a problem, you have to use READ_ONCE().
Thanks for the confirmation!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
