Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page

[John Hubbard]

On 5/11/22 2:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I read that, but there was never any real justification there for needing
> > to prevent a re-read of mt, just a preference: "I'd like to keep use the local
> > variable mt's value in folloing conditions checks instead of refetching
> > the value from get_pageblock_migratetype."
> >
> > But I don't believe that there is any combination of values of mt that
> > will cause a problem here.
> >
> > I also think that once we pull in experts, they will tell us that the
> > compiler is not going to re-run a non-trivial function to re-fetch a
> > value, but I'm not one of those experts, so that's still arguable. But
> > imagine what the kernel code would look like if every time we call
> > a large function, we have to consider if it actually gets called some
> > arbitrary number of times, due to (anti-) optimizations by the compiler.
> > This seems like something that is not really happening.
>
> Maybe, I might be paranoid since I have heard too subtle things
> about how compiler could changes high level language code so wanted
> be careful especially when we do lockless-stuff.
>
> Who cares when we change the large(?) function to small(?) function
> later on? I'd like to hear from experts to decide it.

Yes. But one thing that is still unanswered, that I think you can
answer, is: even if the compiler *did* re-read the mt variable, what
problems could that cause? I claim "no problems", because there is
no combination of 0, _CMA, _ISOLATE, _CMA|ISOLATE that will cause
problems here.

Any if that's true, then we can leave the experts alone, because
the answer is there without knowing what happens exactly to mt.

thanks,

--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA