On 04/08/2013 05:20 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Cody P Schafer <cody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In free_hot_cold_page(), we rely on pcp->batch remaining stable.
Updating it without being on the cpu owning the percpu pageset
potentially destroys this stability.
Change for_each_cpu() to on_each_cpu() to fix.
Are you referring to this? -
This was the case I noticed.
1329 if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
1330 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, pcp->batch, pcp);
1331 pcp->count -= pcp->batch;
1332 }
I'm probably missing the obvious but won't it be simpler to do this in
free_hot_cold_page() -
1329 if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
1330 unsigned int batch = ACCESS_ONCE(pcp->batch);
1331 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, batch, pcp);
1332 pcp->count -= batch;
1333 }
Potentially, yes. Note that this was simply the one case I noticed,
rather than certainly the only case.
I also wonder whether there could be unexpected interactions between
->high and ->batch not changing together atomically. For example, could
adjusting this knob cause ->batch to rise enough that it is greater than
the previous ->high? If the code above then runs with the previous
->high, ->count wouldn't be correct (checking this inside
free_pcppages_bulk() might help on this one issue).
Now the batch value used is stable and you don't have to IPI every CPU
in the system just to change a config knob...
Is this really considered an issue? I wouldn't have expected someone to
adjust the config knob often enough (or even more than once) to cause
problems. Of course as a "It'd be nice" thing, I completely agree.
--
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>