Re: [PATCH] mm: Optimize put_mems_allowed() usage

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 13:16 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I do think it was a bad idea to remove that comment.  As it stands, the
> reader will be wondering why we did the read_mems_allowed_begin() at
> all, and whether failing to check for a change is a bug.
> 
> --- a/mm/slub.c~mm-optimize-put_mems_allowed-usage-fix
> +++ a/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1624,8 +1624,16 @@ static struct page *get_any_partial(stru
>                         if (n && cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, flags) &&
>                                         n->nr_partial > s->min_partial) {
>                                 object = get_partial_node(s, n, c);
> -                               if (object)
> +                               if (object) {
> +                                       /*
> +                                        * Don't check read_mems_allowed_retry()
> +                                        * here - if mems_allowed was updated in
> +                                        * parallel, that was a harmless race
> +                                        * between allocation and the cpuset
> +                                        * update
> +                                        */
>                                         return object;
> +                               }
>                         }
>                 }
>         } while (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie)); 

OK, it seemed weird to have that comment in this one place whilst it is
the general pattern of this construct.

The whole read_mems_allowed_retry() should only ever be attempted in
case the allocation failed.

But sure..

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>