Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] Fix dirty page accounting in redirty_page_for_writepage()

Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-30T14:17:37Z

* Christoph Lameter (cl@linux.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > I see however that it's only guaranteed to be atomic wrt preemption.
> >
> > That's really only true for the non-x86 fallback defines. If we so
> > decide, we could make the fallbacks in asm-generic/percpu.h irq-safe
>
> The fallbacks have different semantics and therefore we cannot rely on
> irq safeness in the core code when using the x86 cpu ops.
>
> > nmi-safe isnt a big issue (we have no NMI code that interacts with
> > MM counters) - and we could make them irq-safe by fixing the
> > wrapper. (and on x86 they are NMI-safe too.)
>
> There are also context in which you alrady are preempt safe and where the
> per cpu ops do not need to go through the prremption hoops.
>
> This means it would be best to have 3 variants for 3 different contexts in
> the core code:
>
> 1. Need irq safety
> 2. Need preempt safety
> 3. We know the operation is safe due to preemption already having been
> disabled or irqs are not enabled.
>
> The 3 variants on x86 generate the same instructions. On other platforms
> they would need to be able to fallback in various way depending on the
> availability of instructions that are atomic vs. preempt or irqs.
>

The problem here, as we did figure out a while ago with the atomic
slub we worked on a while ago, is that if we have the following code :

local_irq_save
var++
var++
local_irq_restore

that we would like to turn into irq-safe percpu variant with this
semantic :

percpu_add_irqsafe(var)
percpu_add_irqsafe(var)

We are generating two irq save/restore in the fallback, which will be
slow.

However, we could do the following trick :

percpu_irqsave(flags);
percpu_add_irq(var);
percpu_add_irq(var);
percpu_irqrestore(flags);

And we could require that percpu_*_irq operations are put within a
irq safe section. The fallback would disable interrupts, but
arch-specific irq-safe atomic implementations would replace this by
nops.

And if interrupts are already disabled, percpu_add_irq could be used
directly. There is no need to duplicate the primitives (no
_percpu_add_irq() needed). Same could apply to preempt-safety :

percpu_preempt_disable();
percpu_add(var);
percpu_add(var);
percpu_preempt_enable();

Where requirements on percpu_add would be to be called within a
percpu_preempt_disable/percpu_preempt_enable section or to be sure that
preemption is already disabled around.

Same thing could apply to bh. But I don't see any difference between
percpu_add_bh and percpu_add_irq, except maybe on architectures which
would use tri-values :

percpu_bh_disable();
percpu_add_bh(var);
percpu_add_bh(var);
percpu_bh_enable();

Thoughts ?

Mathieu

> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch/1124
> http://lwn.net/Articles/284526/
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68