On 06/12/2014 02:21 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
I hate to belabor this point, but I think gcc does treat it differently.
If you look at the assembly comparing your patch to if you do
unsigned long freepage_order = ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page));
instead, then if you enable annotation you'll see that gcc treats the
store as page_x->D.y.private in your patch vs. MEM[(volatile long unsigned
int *)page_x + 48B] with the above.
Hm sure you compiled a version that used page_order_unsafe() and not
page_order()? Because I do see:
MEM[(volatile long unsigned int *)valid_page_114 + 48B];
That's gcc 4.8.1, but our gcc guy said he tried 4.5+ and all was like this.
And that it would be a gcc bug if not.
He also did a test where page_order was called twice in one function and
page_order_unsafe twice in another function. page_order() was reduced to a
single access in the assembly, page_order_unsafe were two accesses.
Ok, and I won't continue to push the point.
I'd rather know I'm correct and not just persistent enough :) If you
confirm that your compiler behaves differently, then maybe making
page_order_unsafe a #define instead of inline function would prevent
this issue?
I think the lockless
suitable_migration_target() call that looks at page_order() is fine in the
free scanner since we use it as a racy check, but it might benefit from
either a comment describing the behavior or a sanity check for
page_order(page) <= MAX_ORDER as you've done before.
OK, I'll add that.
--
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>