Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm, memcg: narrow the scope of percpu_charge_mutex

[Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue 03-08-21 14:29:13, Miaohe Lin wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 616d1a72ece3..6210b1124929 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2208,11 +2208,11 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
>   */
>  static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
>  {
> -       static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex);
>         int cpu, curcpu;
> +       static atomic_t drainer = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> 
>         /* If someone's already draining, avoid adding running more workers. */
> -       if (!mutex_trylock(&percpu_charge_mutex))
> +       if (atomic_cmpxchg(&drainer, 0, 1) != 0)
>                 return;
>         /*
>          * Notify other cpus that system-wide "drain" is running
> @@ -2244,7 +2244,7 @@ static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
>                 }
>         }
>         put_cpu();
> -       mutex_unlock(&percpu_charge_mutex);
> +       atomic_set(&drainer, 0);

atomic_set doesn't imply memory barrier IIRC. Is this safe?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs