Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove unneeded preempt_disable

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-09-06T10:11:59Z

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:58:52 +0200
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:50:53PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> > Both mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() were
> > unnecessarily disabling preemption when adjusting per-cpu counters:
> > preempt_disable()
> > __this_cpu_xxx()
> > __this_cpu_yyy()
> > preempt_enable()
> >
> > This change does not disable preemption and thus CPU switch is possible
> > within these routines. This does not cause a problem because the total
> > of all cpu counters is summed when reporting stats. Now both
> > mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() look like:
> > this_cpu_xxx()
> > this_cpu_yyy()
> >
> > Reported-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
>
> I just noticed that both cases have preemption disabled anyway because
> of the page_cgroup bit spinlock.
>
> So removing the preempt_disable() is fine but we can even keep the
> non-atomic __this_cpu operations.
>
> Something like this instead?
>
> ---
> From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
> Subject: mm: memcg: remove needless recursive preemption disabling
>
> Callsites of mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() hold the page_cgroup bit
> spinlock, which implies disabled preemption.
>
> The same goes for the explicit preemption disabling to account mapped
> file pages in mem_cgroup_move_account().
>
> The explicit disabling of preemption in both cases is redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>

Could you add comments as
"This operation is called under bit spin lock !" ?

Nice catch.

Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hioryu@jp.fujitsu.com>