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, 3 Mar 2021 20:16:49 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.de>
Cc:     Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Wen Yang <wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@gmail.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/slub: Use percpu partial free counter
Message-ID: <20210303201649.GF2723601@casper.infradead.org>
References: <1597061872-58724-1-git-send-email-xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <1597061872-58724-4-git-send-email-xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2103021012010.860725@gentwo.de>
 <20210303142612.GC2723601@casper.infradead.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2103032012250.896915@gentwo.de>
 <20210303193038.GE2723601@casper.infradead.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2103032032070.897408@gentwo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2103032032070.897408@gentwo.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:55:48PM +0100, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > > Can this be allocated in an interrupt context?
> > >
> > > And I am not sure how local_t relates to that? Percpu counters can be used
> > > in an interrupt context without the overhead of the address calculations
> > > that are required by a local_t.
> >
> > As I understand the patch, this counts the number of partially free slabs.
> > So if we start to free an object from a completely full slab in process
> > context, as "load x, add one to x, store x" and take an interrupt
> > between loading x and adding one to x, that interrupt handler might
> > free a different object from another completely full slab.  that would
> > also load the same x, add one to it and store x, but then the process
> > context would add one to the old x, overwriting the updated value from
> > interrupt context.
> 
> this_cpu operations are "atomic" vs. preemption but on some platforms not
> vs interrupts. That could be an issue in kmem_cache_free(). This would
> need a modification to the relevant this_cpu ops so that interrupts are
> disabled on those platforms.

Hmmmm ... re-reading the documentation, it says that this_cpu_x is
atomic against interrupts:

These operations can be used without worrying about
preemption and interrupts::
[...]
        this_cpu_add(pcp, val)
        this_cpu_inc(pcp)
...