From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: npiggin@gmail.com, david@redhat.com, willy@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: whack now bogus comment in pmd_install() concerning a fence
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 23:28:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGudoHFFRRPau=iCYFjNQV_HSnC582ZZgY=iJ1HrS=sCAQ6mRw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240814141614.56337d7cd3f0671d8edc7676@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 11:16 PM Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:52:56 +0200 Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Commit 362a61ad6119 ("fix SMP data race in pagetable setup vs walking")
> > added the following:
> >
> > + smp_wmb(); /* Could be smp_wmb__xxx(before|after)_spin_lock */
> > +
> > spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> >
> > However, over the years the fence along with the comment got moved
> > around the file, eventually landing in a spot where it is *NOT* followed
> > by a lock acquire (or any other operation which might happen to provide
> > any fence on a given arch), rendering the comment stale.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I fully concede I could not be arsed to check if the fence is still
> > needed to begin with, I ran into this while looking at something else.
> > The comment puzzled me for a minute suggesting pmd_populate has an
> > immediate lock acquire inside.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ void pmd_install(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, pgtable_t *pte)
> > * seen in-order. See the alpha page table accessors for the
> > * smp_rmb() barriers in page table walking code.
> > */
> > - smp_wmb(); /* Could be smp_wmb__xxx(before|after)_spin_lock */
> > + smp_wmb();
> > pmd_populate(mm, pmd, *pte);
> > *pte = NULL;
> > }
>
> It's best to document all such barriers, so the preferred patch would
> be to fix the comment rather than removing it.
>
> And if the barrier now does nothing then of course removing the thing
> would be best.
>
> So I'd suggest that the wrong comment be left there, if only to tell
> developers why the barrier used to be there!
The comment above it (only partially seen in the context) documents
what the purpose is.
The comment I'm removing merely mentions a no longer applicable
optimization opportunity: it used to be immediately followed by
spin_lock. If the architecture at hand provides a full fence when
acquiring a lock *and* has a costly smp_wmb, then a hypothetical
smp_wmb__before_spin_lock could be used to elide it.
--
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-14 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-14 14:52 Mateusz Guzik
2024-08-14 21:16 ` Andrew Morton
2024-08-14 21:28 ` Mateusz Guzik [this message]
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='CAGudoHFFRRPau=iCYFjNQV_HSnC582ZZgY=iJ1HrS=sCAQ6mRw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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