Re: [PATCH 03/10] mm, compaction: periodically drop lock and restore IRQs in scanners

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 06/11/2014 03:32 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> >+	if (cc->mode == MIGRATE_ASYNC) {
>> >+		if (need_resched()) {
>> >+			cc->contended = COMPACT_CONTENDED_SCHED;
>> >+			return true;
>> >  		}
>> >-
>> >+		if (spin_is_locked(lock)) {
> Why do you use spin_is_locked instead of spin_is_contended?

Because I know I have dropped the lock. AFAIK spin_is_locked() means 
somebody else is holding it, which would be a contention for me if I 
would want to take it back. spin_is_contended() means that somebody else 
#1 is holding it AND somebody else #2 is already waiting for it.

Previously in should_release_lock() the code assumed that it was me who 
holds the lock, so I check if somebody else is waiting for it, hence 
spin_is_contended().

But note that the assumption was not always true when 
should_release_lock() was called from compact_checklock_irqsave(). So it 
was another subtle suboptimality. In async compaction when I don't have 
the lock, I should be deciding if I take it based on if somebody else is 
holding it. Instead it was deciding based on if somebody else #1 is 
holding it and somebody else #2 is waiting.
Then there's still a chance of race between this check and call to 
spin_lock_irqsave, so I could spin on the lock even if I don't want to. 
Using spin_trylock_irqsave() instead is like checking spin_is_locked() 
and locking, without this race.

So even though I will probably remove the spin_is_locked() check per 
David's objection, the trylock will still nicely prevent waiting on the 
lock in async compaction.

--
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>