From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932182Ab3FFJhf (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:37:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51450 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754464Ab3FFJhc (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:37:32 -0400 Message-ID: <51B0584F.6080609@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:37:19 +0200 From: Jerome Marchand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jiang Liu CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Nitin Gupta , Minchan Kim , Yijing Wang , Jiang Liu , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] zram: use atomic64_xxx() to replace zram_stat64_xxx() References: <1370361968-8764-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@huawei.com> <1370361968-8764-10-git-send-email-jiang.liu@huawei.com> <51AF28C4.3040405@redhat.com> <51AF659F.9080205@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51AF659F.9080205@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/05/2013 06:21 PM, Jiang Liu wrote: > On Wed 05 Jun 2013 08:02:12 PM CST, Jerome Marchand wrote: >> On 06/04/2013 06:06 PM, Jiang Liu wrote: >>> Use atomic64_xxx() to replace open-coded zram_stat64_xxx(). >>> Some architectures have native support of atomic64 operations, >>> so we can get rid of the spin_lock() in zram_stat64_xxx(). >>> On the other hand, for platforms use generic version of atomic64 >>> implement, it may cause an extra save/restore of the interrupt >>> flag. So it's a tradeoff. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu >> >> Before optimizing stats, I'd like to make sure that they're correct. >> What makes 64 bits fields so different that they need atomicity while >> 32 bits wouldn't? Actually all of them save compr_size only increase, >> which would make a race less critical than for 32 bits fields that all >> can go up and down (if a decrement overwrites a increment, the counter >> can wrap around zero). >> >> Jerome >> > Hi Jerome, > I'm not sure about the design decision, but I could give a > guess here. > 1) All 32-bit counters are only modified by > zram_bvec_write()/zram_page_free() > and is/should be protected by down_write(&zram->lock). Good point! > 2) __zram_make_request() modifies some 64-bit counters without > protection. > 3) zram_bvec_write() modifies some 64-bit counters and it's protected > with > down_read(&zram->lock). I assume you mean down_write(). > 4) It's always safe for sysfs handler to read 32bit counters. > 5) It's unsafe for sysfs handler to read 64bit counters on 32bit > platforms. I was unaware of that. > > So it does work with current design, but very hard to understand. > Suggest to use atomic_t for 32bit counters too for maintainability, > though may be a little slower. > Any suggestion? If atomic counter aren't necessary, no need to use them, but a comment in zram_stats definition would be nice. Could you add one in your next version of this patch? Thanks Jerome > Regards! > Gerry >