On 7/8/22 16:44, Mel Gorman wrote:
> pcpu_spin_unlock and pcpu_spin_unlock_irqrestore both unlock
> pcp->lock and then enable preemption. This lacks symmetry against
> both the pcpu_spin helpers and differs from how local_unlock_* is
> implemented. While this is harmless, it's unnecessary and it's generally
> better to unwind locks and preemption state in the reverse order as
> they were acquired.
Hm I'm confused, it seems it's done in reverse order (which I agree with)
before this -fix-fix, but not after it?
before, pcpu_spin_lock() (and variants) do pcpu_task_pin() and then
spin_lock() (or variant), and pcpu_spin_unlock() does spin_unlock() and then
pcpu_task_unpin(). That seems symmetrical, i.e. reverse order to me? And
seems to match what local_lock family does too.
> This is a fix on top of the mm-unstable patch
> mm-page_alloc-replace-local_lock-with-normal-spinlock-fix.patch
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 934d1b5a5449..d0141e51e613 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -192,14 +192,14 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(pcp_batch_high_lock);
>
> #define pcpu_spin_unlock(member, ptr) \
> ({ \
> - spin_unlock(&ptr->member); \
> pcpu_task_unpin(); \
> + spin_unlock(&ptr->member); \
> })
>
> #define pcpu_spin_unlock_irqrestore(member, ptr, flags) \
> ({ \
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ptr->member, flags); \
> pcpu_task_unpin(); \
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ptr->member, flags); \
> })
>
> /* struct per_cpu_pages specific helpers. */
