From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
John Dias <joaodias@google.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:26:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YnxUTxnCJ6EsmjEi@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220512002207.GJ1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:22:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:12:32PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 5/11/22 16:57, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 5/11/22 16:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well no, because the "&" operation is a single operation on the CPU, and
> > > > > isn't going to get split up like that.
> > > >
> > > > Chiming in a bit late...
> > >
> > > Much appreciated!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The usual way that this sort of thing causes trouble is if there is a
> > > > single store instruction that changes the value from MIGRATE_ISOLATE
> > > > to MIGRATE_CMA, and if the compiler decides to fetch twice, AND twice,
> > >
> > > Doing an AND twice for "x & constant" this definitely blows my mind. Is
> > > nothing sacred? :)
> > >
> > > > and then combine the results. This could give a zero outcome where the
> > > > underlying variable never had the value zero.
> > > >
> > > > Is this sort of thing low probability?
> > > >
> > > > Definitely.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't this sort of thing prohibited?
> > > >
> > > > Definitely not.
> > > >
> > > > So what you have will likely work for at least a while longer, but it
> > > > is not guaranteed and it forces you to think a lot harder about what
> > > > the current implementations of the compiler can and cannot do to you.
> > > >
> > > > The following LWN article goes through some of the possible optimizations
> > > > (vandalisms?) in this area: https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/
> > > >
> > >
> > > hmm, I don't think we hit any of those cases, do we? Because here, the
> > > "write" side is via a non-inline function that I just don't believe the
> > > compiler is allowed to call twice. Or is it?
> > >
> > > Minchan's earlier summary:
> > >
> > > CPU 0 CPU1
> > >
> > >
> > > set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
> > >
> > > if (get_pageblock_migrate(page) & MIGRATE_CMA)
> > >
> > > set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_CMA)
> > >
> > > if (get_pageblock_migrate(page) & MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
> > >
> > > ...where set_pageblock_migratetype() is not inline.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> >
> > Let me try to say this more clearly: I don't think that the following
> > __READ_ONCE() statement can actually help anything, given that
> > get_pageblock_migratetype() is non-inlined:
> >
> > + int __mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> > + int mt = __READ_ONCE(__mt);
> > +
> > + if (mt & (MIGRATE_CMA | MIGRATE_ISOLATE))
> > + return false;
> >
> >
> > Am I missing anything here?
>
> In the absence of future aggression from link-time optimizations (LTO),
> you are missing nothing.
A thing I want to note is Android kernel uses LTO full mode.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-12 0:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-10 21:17 [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page Minchan Kim
2022-05-10 22:56 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-10 23:31 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-10 23:58 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-11 0:09 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-11 4:32 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-11 21:46 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-11 22:25 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-11 22:37 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-11 22:49 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-11 23:08 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-11 23:13 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-11 23:15 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-11 23:28 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-11 23:33 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-11 23:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-11 23:57 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-12 0:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-12 0:12 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-12 0:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-12 0:26 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2022-05-12 0:34 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-12 0:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-12 1:02 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-12 1:03 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-12 1:08 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-12 2:18 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-12 3:44 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-12 4:47 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-17 14:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-05-17 18:12 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-17 19:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-05-17 20:12 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-17 20:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-23 16:33 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-24 2:55 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-24 5:16 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-24 6:22 ` John Hubbard
2022-05-24 14:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-05-24 15:43 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-24 15:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-05-24 16:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-24 16:59 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-12 3:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-12 1:03 ` Minchan Kim
2022-05-12 0:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=YnxUTxnCJ6EsmjEi@google.com \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=joaodias@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.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).