On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > >>> On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> The patch introduces page->compound_head into third double word block in > > > > >>>>>> front of compound_dtor and compound_order. That means it shares storage > > > > >>>>>> space with: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> - page->lru.next; > > > > >>>>>> - page->next; > > > > >>>>>> - page->rcu_head.next; > > > > >>>>>> - page->pmd_huge_pte; > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> We should probably ask Paul about the chances that rcu_head.next would like > > > > >>> to use the bit too one day? > > > > >> > > > > >> +Paul. > > > > > > > > > > The call_rcu() function does stomp that bit, but if you stop using that > > > > > bit before you invoke call_rcu(), no problem. > > > > > > > > You mean that it sets the bit 0 of rcu_head.next during its processing? > > > > > > Not at the moment, though RCU will splat if given a misaligned rcu_head > > > structure because of the possibility to use that bit to flag callbacks > > > that do nothing but free memory. If RCU needs to do that (e.g., to > > > promote energy efficiency), then that bit might well be set during > > > RCU grace-period processing. > > > > But if you do one day implement that, wouldn't sl?b.c have to use > > call_rcu_with_added_meaning() instead of call_rcu(), to be in danger > > of getting that bit set? (No rcu_head is placed in a PageTail page.) > > Good point, call_rcu_lazy(), but yes. > > > So although it might be a little strange not to use a variant intended > > for freeing memory when indeed that's what it's doing, it would not be > > the end of the world for SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to carry on using straight > > call_rcu(), in defence of the struct page safety Kirill is proposing. > > As long as you are OK with the bottom bit being zero throughout the RCU > processing, yes. That's exactly what we want: sounds like we have no problem, thanks Paul. Hugh -- 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>