From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, yuzhao@google.com
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove an avoidable load of page refcount in page_ref_add_unless
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:28:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <94d0dcbe-2001-4a9c-a767-b337b688b616@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241207082931.1707465-1-mjguzik@gmail.com>
On 07.12.24 09:29, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> Explicitly pre-checking the count adds nothing as atomic_add_unless
> starts with doing the same thing. iow no functional changes.
I recall that we added that check because with the hugetlb vmemmap
optimization, some of the tail pages we don't ever expect to be modified
(because they are fake-duplicated) might be mapped R/O.
If the arch implementation of atomic_add_unless() would trigger an
unconditional write fault, we'd be in trouble. That would likely only be
the case if the arch provides a dedicate instruction.
atomic_add_unless()->raw_atomic_add_unless()
Nobody currently defines arch_atomic_add_unless().
raw_atomic_fetch_add_unless()->arch_atomic_fetch_add_unless() is defined
on some architectures.
I scanned some of the inline-asm, and I think most of them perform a
check first.
So this currently looks good to me, but we'll rely on the fact that
atomic_add_unless() will never trigger a write fault if the values
match. Which makes me wonder if we should document that behavior of
atomic_add_unless().
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-09 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-07 8:29 Mateusz Guzik
2024-12-09 9:28 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2024-12-09 10:25 ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-12-09 10:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-12-09 12:33 ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-12-09 14:22 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-12-09 14:30 ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-12-09 14:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-01-07 4:41 ` Yu Zhao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=94d0dcbe-2001-4a9c-a767-b337b688b616@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox