Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page

Minchan Kim
2022-05-11T00:10:44Z

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:58:13PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 5/10/22 4:31 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > + int __mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> > > > + int mt = __READ_ONCE(__mt);
> > >
> > > Although I saw the email discussion about this in v2, that discussion
> > > didn't go far enough. It started with "don't use volatile", and went
> > > on to "try __READ_ONCE() instead", but it should have continued on
> > > to "you don't need this at all".
> >
> > That's really what I want to hear from experts so wanted to learn
> > "Why". How could we prevent refetching of the mt if we don't use
> > __READ_ONCE or volatile there?
> >
> > >
> > > Because you don't. There is nothing you are racing with, and adding
> > > __READ_ONCE() in order to avoid a completely not-going-to-happen
> > > compiler re-invocation of a significant code block is just very wrong.
> > >
> > > So let's just let it go entirely. :)
> >
> > Yeah, once it's clear for everyone, I am happy to remove the
> > unnecessary lines.
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + if (mt == MIGRATE_CMA || mt == MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
> > >
>
> With or without __READ_ONCE() or volatile or anything else,
> this code will do what you want. Which is: loosely check
> for either of the above.
>
> What functional problem do you think you are preventing
> with __READ_ONCE()? Because I don't see one.

I discussed the issue at v1 so please take a look.