From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:06:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060119170656.GA9904@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601190756390.3240@g5.osdl.org>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:36:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So I _think_ that at least the case in "isolate_lru_page()", you'd
> actually be better off doing the "test-and-clear" instead of separate
> "test" and "clear-bit" ops, no? In that one, it would seem that 99+% of
> the time, the bit is set (because we tested it just before getting the
> lock).
>
> No?
>
Well in isolate_lru_page, the test operation is actually optional
(ie. it is the conditional for a BUG). And I have plans for making
some of those configurable....
But at least on the G5, test_and_clear can be noticable (although
IIRC it was in the noise for _this_ articular case) because of the
memory barriers required.
>
> Now, that whole "we might touch the page count" thing does actually worry
> me a bit. The locking rules are subtle (but they -seem- safe: before we
> actually really put the page on the free-list in the freeing path, we'll
> have locked the LRU list if it was on one).
>
Yes, I think Andrew did his homework. I thought it through quite a bit
before sending the patches and again after your feedback. Subtle though,
no doubt.
> But if you were to change _that_ one to a
>
> atomic_add_unless(&page->counter, 1, -1);
>
> I think that would be a real cleanup. And at that point I won't even
> complain that "atomic_inc_test()" is faster - that "get_page_testone()"
> thing is just fundamentally a bit scary, so I'd applaud it regardless.
>
Hmm... this is what the de-skew patch _did_ (although it was wrapped
in a function called get_page_unless_zero), in fact the main aim was
to prevent this twiddling and the de-skewing was just a nice side effect
(I guess the patch title is misleading).
So I'm confused...
> (The difference: the "counter skewing" may be unexpected, but it's just a
> simple trick. In contrast, the "touch the count after the page may be
> already in the freeing stage" is a scary subtle thing. Even if I can't
> see any actual bug in it, it just worries me in a way that offsetting a
> counter by one does not..)
>
Don't worry, you'll be seeing that patch again -- it is required for
lockless pagecache.
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-19 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-18 10:40 [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 1/4] mm: page refcount use atomic primitives Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 2/4] mm: PageLRU no testset Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 17:48 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-19 18:10 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 3/3] mm: PageActive " Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 14:13 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-19 14:50 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 16:52 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-19 20:02 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 21:41 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-18 10:41 ` [patch 4/4] mm: less atomic ops Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 16:38 ` [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount Linus Torvalds
2006-01-18 17:05 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-19 14:00 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 16:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-19 17:06 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-01-19 17:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-19 17:38 ` Nick Piggin
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=20060119170656.GA9904@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).