From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E1AC4742C for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:17:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EDD206CA for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="LkrweCrN" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C4EDD206CA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 14EE76B0036; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 127826B005D; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:17:31 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 015076B0068; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:17:30 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0044.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.44]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9CE6B0036 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694CF181AEF00 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:17:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77471433060.12.floor67_1d13dbb272fc Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E261800913E for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:17:30 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: floor67_1d13dbb272fc X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5603 Received: from mail-vk1-f193.google.com (mail-vk1-f193.google.com [209.85.221.193]) by imf48.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id d191so291113vka.13 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:17:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qyCZne5cZpLNOqDry4HVxqltreV+5uSXk934/wIueCQ=; b=LkrweCrNctWBJmZhOmVK1Rzbd5NVaaKQuUZ7ogoTkNLtcKS1qRptELkjFKxAoo/BW0 P35onUOxdrqcVXzz35VtvWEvfj38Gdbm+Bdv/lwhCcDrizl6PzXh9JlZJrdPeYOs/ybe cwY7GQAwEF7/Mg2wY4aoFKT97vFprivkS5vVY4PuA8xcoo0iyfTevwWEIupadrC6yQQX spp3O5rZ/q1Wx4AE+znuA+rOIR+kZy1SYrJYXh7+Yk1TCx2/dj6tB0ZLia4HA+GPSsSW b5eXL06oey9MVpiBqb43EKDBlW5ai1A2WseVlAgbIFfOcDrT8Svl/de7lOLaM8arvWRP Vrng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qyCZne5cZpLNOqDry4HVxqltreV+5uSXk934/wIueCQ=; b=G88H+G/NP9Bwpg5WW6J8fc6F+AjPaOPy1SRBxbboSJKcQdG/mNRTqchiw2+9ufBOe1 yhSa0aWdmJs32O2KYOU2yb8qZxWqYmptxCpAjZNnVZtQtk9euLfbmFax8qIdpJMsrKHH FWuqg5hzZCq58QyVTFsbAUncJE6a8234qu28jkId72vCwtl0nEKk5beD9Hvxww1cJIW2 9I6k1+4cvAWgBijLRh+C8uUjGSa3eX4AvxWoDFF0bMrnVe6bQcdCbDrhV2JLZDxaqj45 BCnhvW/QIxqOJIrHV5nGD3SCSktJYVw0QotMF0O+c0zeTMkLFhbYC3Ddatvz70ZqIdyw Nw3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jXqf5CfbZK8X0A0j69Zp3XcATBQLxYEWxsHR9cFGYIyRYyr8d nTk7T6erdqvQmahLwBQrzXVa/bEnq9M71Cqy9aI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9LAaNIBuOND3zftoBkxCQN1Q5Cr0eSOTm3JEn3FdwtGO4po/GZTsKLe/R3gJlhxPFwrPo+aQ/EuY0i/U+sM4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:84f:: with SMTP id 15mr9455291vkk.25.1605082649083; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:17:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1604566549-62481-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <1604566549-62481-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> In-Reply-To: <1604566549-62481-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> From: huang ying Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:17:17 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 07/19] mm: page_idle_get_page() does not need lru_lock To: Alex Shi Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Hugh Dickins , khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, willy@infradead.org, Johannes Weiner , lkp@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt , iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, richard.weiyang@gmail.com, kirill@shutemov.name, alexander.duyck@gmail.com, kernel test robot , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , shy828301@gmail.com, Vlastimil Babka , Minchan Kim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 4:56 PM Alex Shi wrote: > > From: Hugh Dickins > > It is necessary for page_idle_get_page() to recheck PageLRU() after > get_page_unless_zero(), but holding lru_lock around that serves no > useful purpose, and adds to lru_lock contention: delete it. > > See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150504031722.GA2768@blaptop for the > discussion that led to lru_lock there; but __page_set_anon_rmap() now > uses WRITE_ONCE(), and I see no other risk in page_idle_clear_pte_refs() > using rmap_walk() (beyond the risk of racing PageAnon->PageKsm, mostly > but not entirely prevented by page_count() check in ksm.c's > write_protect_page(): that risk being shared with page_referenced() and > not helped by lru_lock). > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > Cc: Andrew Morton > Cc: Vladimir Davydov > Cc: Vlastimil Babka > Cc: Minchan Kim > Cc: Alex Shi > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > --- > mm/page_idle.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_idle.c b/mm/page_idle.c > index 057c61df12db..64e5344a992c 100644 > --- a/mm/page_idle.c > +++ b/mm/page_idle.c > @@ -32,19 +32,15 @@ > static struct page *page_idle_get_page(unsigned long pfn) > { > struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(pfn); > - pg_data_t *pgdat; > > if (!page || !PageLRU(page) || > !get_page_unless_zero(page)) > return NULL; > > - pgdat = page_pgdat(page); > - spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock); get_page_unless_zero() is a full memory barrier. But do we need a compiler barrier here to prevent the compiler to cache PageLRU() results here? Otherwise looks OK to me, Acked-by: "Huang, Ying" Best Regards, Huang, Ying > if (unlikely(!PageLRU(page))) { > put_page(page); > page = NULL; > } > - spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock); > return page; > } > > -- > 1.8.3.1 > >