Re: [this_cpu_xx V4 13/20] this_cpu_ops: page allocator conversion

[Mel Gorman]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:34:56PM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > > -	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > -	pcp = &this_cpu_ptr(zone->pageset)->pcp;
> > >  	migratetype = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> > >  	set_page_private(page, migratetype);
> > >  	if (unlikely(wasMlocked))
> >
> > Why did you move local_irq_save() ? It should have stayed where it was
> > because VM counters are updated under the lock. Only the this_cpu_ptr
> > should be moving.
> 
> The __count_vm_event()?

and the __dec_zone_page_state within free_page_mlock(). However, it's already
atomic so it shouldn't be a problem.

> VM counters may be incremented in a racy way if
> convenient. x86 usually produces non racy code (and with this patchset
> will always produce non racy code) but f.e. IA64 has always had racy
> updates. I'd rather shorted the irq off section.
> 

The count_vm_event is now racier than it was and no longer symmetric with
the PGALLOC counting which still happens with IRQs disabled. The assymetry
could look very strange if there are a lot more frees than allocs for example
because the raciness between the counters is difference.

While I have no problem as such with the local_irq_save() moving (although
I would like PGFREE and PGALLOC to be accounted both with or without IRQs
enabled), I think it deserves to be in a patch all to itself and not hidden
in an apparently unrelated change.

> See the comment in vmstat.h.
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/