All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: when handling percpu_pagelist_fraction, use on_each_cpu() to set percpu pageset fields.
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:28:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5162FE4D.7020308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOtvUMdT0-oQMTsHAjFqL6K8vrLeCcXG2hX-sShxu6GGRBPxJw@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/08/2013 05:20 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> In free_hot_cold_page(), we rely on pcp->batch remaining stable.
>> Updating it without being on the cpu owning the percpu pageset
>> potentially destroys this stability.
>>
>> Change for_each_cpu() to on_each_cpu() to fix.
>
> Are you referring to this? -

This was the case I noticed.

>
> 1329         if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
> 1330                 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, pcp->batch, pcp);
> 1331                 pcp->count -= pcp->batch;
> 1332         }
>
> I'm probably missing the obvious but won't it be simpler to do this in
>   free_hot_cold_page() -
>
> 1329         if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
> 1330                  unsigned int batch = ACCESS_ONCE(pcp->batch);
> 1331                 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, batch, pcp);
> 1332                 pcp->count -= batch;
> 1333         }
>

Potentially, yes. Note that this was simply the one case I noticed, 
rather than certainly the only case.

I also wonder whether there could be unexpected interactions between 
->high and ->batch not changing together atomically. For example, could 
adjusting this knob cause ->batch to rise enough that it is greater than 
the previous ->high? If the code above then runs with the previous 
->high, ->count wouldn't be correct (checking this inside 
free_pcppages_bulk() might help on this one issue).

> Now the batch value used is stable and you don't have to IPI every CPU
> in the system just to change a config knob...

Is this really considered an issue? I wouldn't have expected someone to 
adjust the config knob often enough (or even more than once) to cause 
problems. Of course as a "It'd be nice" thing, I completely agree.

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: when handling percpu_pagelist_fraction, use on_each_cpu() to set percpu pageset fields.
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:28:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5162FE4D.7020308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOtvUMdT0-oQMTsHAjFqL6K8vrLeCcXG2hX-sShxu6GGRBPxJw@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/08/2013 05:20 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> In free_hot_cold_page(), we rely on pcp->batch remaining stable.
>> Updating it without being on the cpu owning the percpu pageset
>> potentially destroys this stability.
>>
>> Change for_each_cpu() to on_each_cpu() to fix.
>
> Are you referring to this? -

This was the case I noticed.

>
> 1329         if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
> 1330                 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, pcp->batch, pcp);
> 1331                 pcp->count -= pcp->batch;
> 1332         }
>
> I'm probably missing the obvious but won't it be simpler to do this in
>   free_hot_cold_page() -
>
> 1329         if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
> 1330                  unsigned int batch = ACCESS_ONCE(pcp->batch);
> 1331                 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, batch, pcp);
> 1332                 pcp->count -= batch;
> 1333         }
>

Potentially, yes. Note that this was simply the one case I noticed, 
rather than certainly the only case.

I also wonder whether there could be unexpected interactions between 
->high and ->batch not changing together atomically. For example, could 
adjusting this knob cause ->batch to rise enough that it is greater than 
the previous ->high? If the code above then runs with the previous 
->high, ->count wouldn't be correct (checking this inside 
free_pcppages_bulk() might help on this one issue).

> Now the batch value used is stable and you don't have to IPI every CPU
> in the system just to change a config knob...

Is this really considered an issue? I wouldn't have expected someone to 
adjust the config knob often enough (or even more than once) to cause 
problems. Of course as a "It'd be nice" thing, I completely agree.


  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-08 17:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-05 20:33 [PATCH 0/3] mm: fixup changers of per cpu pageset's ->high and ->batch Cody P Schafer
2013-04-05 20:33 ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-05 20:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm/page_alloc: factor out setting of pcp->high and pcp->batch Cody P Schafer
2013-04-05 20:33   ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-07  1:37   ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-07  1:37     ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-08 17:39     ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 17:39       ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-09  5:42       ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-09  5:42         ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-05 20:33 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm/page_alloc: convert zone_pcp_update() to use on_each_cpu() instead of stop_machine() Cody P Schafer
2013-04-05 20:33   ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-07 15:39   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-07 15:39     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 17:32     ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 17:32       ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 19:26       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 19:26         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 19:49         ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 19:49           ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 22:18           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 22:18             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-09  1:52             ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-09  1:52               ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-05 20:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: when handling percpu_pagelist_fraction, use on_each_cpu() to set percpu pageset fields Cody P Schafer
2013-04-05 20:33   ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-07  1:56   ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-07  1:56     ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-08 17:34     ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 17:34       ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-07 15:41   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-07 15:41     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 12:20   ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2013-04-08 12:20     ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2013-04-08 17:28     ` Cody P Schafer [this message]
2013-04-08 17:28       ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 19:50       ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 19:50         ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 22:23         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 22:23           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-09  6:03       ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2013-04-09  6:03         ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2013-04-09  6:06         ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2013-04-09  6:06           ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2013-04-09 19:27           ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-09 19:27             ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 19:16     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 19:16       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-07  1:32 ` [PATCH 0/3] mm: fixup changers of per cpu pageset's ->high and ->batch Simon Jeons
2013-04-07  1:32   ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-08 19:37   ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 19:37     ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-07 15:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-07 15:23   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 17:16   ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 17:16     ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 19:08     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 19:08       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-04-08 21:17       ` Cody P Schafer
2013-04-08 21:17         ` Cody P Schafer

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=5162FE4D.7020308@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=gilad@benyossef.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.