From: Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@gmail.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vmalloc: purge_fragmented_blocks: Acquire spinlock before reading vmap_block
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 12:43:32 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFPAmTSJDXD1KNVBUz75yN_CeCT9f_+W9CaRNN467LSyCD+WXg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112072304010.28419@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:37 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Kautuk Consul wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> index 3231bf3..2228971 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> @@ -855,11 +855,14 @@ static void purge_fragmented_blocks(int cpu)
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(vb, &vbq->free, free_list) {
>> + spin_lock(&vb->lock);
>>
>> - if (!(vb->free + vb->dirty == VMAP_BBMAP_BITS && vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS))
>> + if (!(vb->free + vb->dirty == VMAP_BBMAP_BITS &&
>> + vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS)) {
>> + spin_unlock(&vb->lock);
>> continue;
>> + }
>>
>> - spin_lock(&vb->lock);
>> if (vb->free + vb->dirty == VMAP_BBMAP_BITS && vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS) {
>> vb->free = 0; /* prevent further allocs after releasing lock */
>> vb->dirty = VMAP_BBMAP_BITS; /* prevent purging it again */
>
> Nack, this is wrong because the if-clause you're modifying isn't the
> criteria that is used to determine whether the purge occurs or not. It's
> merely an optimization to prevent doing exactly what your patch is doing:
> taking vb->lock unnecessarily.
I agree.
>
> In the original code, if the if-clause fails, the lock is only then taken
> and the exact same test occurs again while protected. If the test now
> fails, the lock is immediately dropped. A branch here is faster than a
> contented spinlock.
But, if there is some concurrent change happening to vb->free and
vb->dirty, dont you think
that it will continue and then go to the next vmap_block ?
If yes, then it will not be put into the purge list.
So, can we make a change where we simply remove the first check ?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-08 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-08 7:02 Kautuk Consul
2011-12-08 7:07 ` David Rientjes
2011-12-08 7:13 ` Kautuk Consul [this message]
2011-12-08 7:18 ` David Rientjes
2011-12-08 7:26 ` Kautuk Consul
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=CAFPAmTSJDXD1KNVBUz75yN_CeCT9f_+W9CaRNN467LSyCD+WXg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=consul.kautuk@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=rientjes@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