Re: [PATCH] mm: Delete non-atomic mm counter implementation

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:36:05 +0100
Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The problem with having two different types of counters is that
> developers adding new code need to keep in mind whether it's safe to
> use both the atomic and non-atomic implementations. For example, when
> adding new callers of the *_mm_counter() functions a developer needs
> to ensure that those paths are always executed with page_table_lock
> held, in case we're using the non-atomic implementation of mm
> counters.
> 
> Hugh Dickins introduced the atomic mm counters in commit f412ac08c986
> ("[PATCH] mm: fix rss and mmlist locking"). When asked why he left the
> non-atomic counters around he said,
> 
>   | The only reason was to avoid adding costly atomic operations into a
>   | configuration that had no need for them there: the page_table_lock
>   | sufficed.
>   |
>   | Certainly it would be simpler just to delete the non-atomic variant.
>   |
>   | And I think it's fair to say that any configuration on which we're
>   | measuring performance to that degree (rather than "does it boot fast?"
>   | type measurements), would already be going the split ptlocks route.
> 
> Removing the non-atomic counters eases the maintenance burden because
> developers no longer have to mindful of the two implementations when
> using *_mm_counter().
> 
> Note that all architectures provide a means of atomically updating
> atomic_long_t variables, even if they have to revert to the generic
> spinlock implementation because they don't support 64-bit atomic
> instructions (see lib/atomic64.c).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

now mm_counters are update in per-thread and removing non-atomic
will not have big impact in performance, I hope. 

Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

--
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/