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:   Tue, 25 May 2021 12:47:15 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/26] mm, slub: simplify kmem_cache_cpu and tid setup
Message-ID: <20210525114715.GN30378@techsingularity.net>
References: <20210524233946.20352-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20210524233946.20352-5-vbabka@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210524233946.20352-5-vbabka@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 01:39:24AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> In slab_alloc_node() and do_slab_free() fastpaths we need to guarantee that
> our kmem_cache_cpu pointer is from the same cpu as the tid value. Currently
> that's done by reading the tid first using this_cpu_read(), then the
> kmem_cache_cpu pointer and verifying we read the same tid using the pointer and
> plain READ_ONCE().
> 
> This can be simplified to just fetching kmem_cache_cpu pointer and then reading
> tid using the pointer. That guarantees they are from the same cpu. We don't
> need to read the tid using this_cpu_read() because the value will be validated
> by this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(), making sure we are on the correct cpu and the
> freelist didn't change by anyone preempting us since reading the tid.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Wow, that's a fun approach to avoiding disabling preemption but the
validation check against preemption remains the same so;

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs