From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDDDC433EF for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:09:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5587C6101D for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:09:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 5587C6101D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C97916B006C; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C47B7900002; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:09:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B0F5F6B0073; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:09:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0041.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.41]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30776B006C for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491DD1810F5E4 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:09:32 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78687514584.15.A501595 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB4E7001A23 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:09:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1634036971; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=A4tr+WT1IxgZxfPSMgT77kTtr4zb6xglyk4OS2F3Jl0=; b=U6PCpwePlMj9vVRkz4zszyay/Y4GV8kyR5/C61F/GjVCRp3vbM78WjLc43jgpesD//XZMK lb7fssI1Z5+cbCGMGW9QrY3L/rEPcna7ph5zuPYtxJOUWCyOE10bHCeN2acIvpZSfrOaj0 N2yqFwukx2zvTQmgwdWHAZpH4Ghiz1c= Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-535-jo6sa8qpOVmUYi2uLkj9yQ-1; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:09:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: jo6sa8qpOVmUYi2uLkj9yQ-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id a15-20020a056000188f00b00161068d8461so5130976wri.11 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 04:09:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=A4tr+WT1IxgZxfPSMgT77kTtr4zb6xglyk4OS2F3Jl0=; b=1VhGm6UcSG0mJfXkxj+Z7Xok0SqAiQL7AX77zhz6bk7AgjySXn0gbuVvIAAw6j9lME hB0ytFCV5s2TOtjj0/2TDxBZ6CGRf+FYjdDxTAEZeh8Um4+OBBIX+88OQwUr+9hPP6QH 6AOh4jQiKeoCJiZgPzc5WGxUgrUkw8glPi5s8MHYfFBQcsaNMduinXlvxThoRlKmONgF Pgy3dSOyqUKNSZ3YICW5ZovZb6GTkraGBbeh5WIPPcHaHhv5isMQclr7u/zXNhhnO9mx diF6YOPpz+Ep0/AmkZvoy7uhpbU1Qgms1Fk+OoNGM9M7mxINLm1xUgXvMHOpzP0oCNEw YRrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ZLnYYODEVIZ1PbYJ+kaPGWgAUcoi08FCBeZy4/TwjhKhCoemW zhHMIUSmoOmtq3rXE3kmKxzHadIlg4W89SZX+n5eFVVGDwh4JUi7xcR1Y2orsuy3S1UwRKAu+0j ACGPMNKqCydk= X-Received: by 2002:adf:f243:: with SMTP id b3mr27633251wrp.60.1634036969052; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 04:09:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygxbR8TZi995RillXEzlYF5xWuVLmUYBvwoxySOHwlJfQ8XK3bdv479X7rqn+gjR5inWbuyw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f243:: with SMTP id b3mr27633215wrp.60.1634036968803; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p5b0c6a12.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.12.106.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l20sm3150399wmq.42.2021.10.12.04.09.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg] mm/page_alloc.c: avoid statistic update with 0 To: Vasily Averin , Vlastimil Babka , Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@openvz.org, Mel Gorman , Uladzislau Rezki References: <29155011-f884-b0e5-218e-911039568acb@suse.cz> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <0a707990-f12c-3c60-2a96-e1d531e100a6@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:09:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CDB4E7001A23 X-Stat-Signature: zi1wrw9csq9r8s9mx84ccx3n6ymqgo7p Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=U6PCpweP; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=none (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 216.205.24.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-HE-Tag: 1634036971-792911 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 12.10.21 12:42, Vasily Averin wrote: > On 08.10.2021 14:47, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 10/8/21 11:24, Vasily Averin wrote: >>> __alloc_pages_bulk can call __count_zid_vm_events and zone_statistics >>> with nr_account = 0. >> >> But that's not a bug, right? Just an effective no-op that's not commonly >> happening, so is it worth the check? > > Why not? > > Yes, it's not a bug, it just makes the kernel a bit more efficient in a very unlikely case. > However, it looks strange and makes uninformed code reviewers like me worry about possible > problems inside the affected functions. No one else calls these functions from 0. > If it's not a BUG we'd better leave "Fixes:" tags away., it tends to confuse people looking for actual BUGs. I'm also not sure if this micro-optimization is worth it. "bit more efficient in a very unlikely case" doesn't sound very compelling ... and personally I'd assume accounting functions can deal with a delta of 0. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb