Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:16:12 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, cgoldswo@codeaurora.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, joaodias@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] mm: disable LRU pagevec during the migration
 temporarily
Message-ID: <20210217211612.GO2858050@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20210216170348.1513483-1-minchan@kernel.org>
 <YCzbCg3+upAo1Kdj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <YC2Am34Fso5Y5SPC@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YC2Am34Fso5Y5SPC@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:46:19PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I suspect you do not want to add atomic_read inside hot paths, right? Is
> > this really something that we have to microoptimize for? atomic_read is
> > a simple READ_ONCE on many archs.
> 
> It's also spin_lock_irq_save in some arch. If the new synchonization is
> heavily compilcated, atomic would be better for simple start but I thought
> this locking scheme is too simple so no need to add atomic operation in
> readside.

What arch uses a spinlock for atomic_read()?  I just had a quick grep and
didn't see any.