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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211026173822.502506-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <20211026173822.502506-2-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <CAMZfGtVS2ZRAsd9HLODoLa1vVp0XCcBOTXjsmpoWwDcdGaADvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+CK2bA1mj3B8Y47r8KG7oYCNn63WsjUZeyAdOkThjixxqxGPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bA1mj3B8Y47r8KG7oYCNn63WsjUZeyAdOkThjixxqxGPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:08:24 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtVMLUrDZc+_j29jSPTKYmsMRWymxZNwtM2TpKH9wMPfUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] mm: add overflow and underflow checks for page->_refcount
To:     Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        william.kucharski@oracle.com,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        schmitzmic@gmail.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, weixugc@google.com,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:22 AM Pasha Tatashin
<pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
>
> > I found some atomic_add/dec are replaced with atomic_add/dec_return,
>
> I am going to replace -return variants with -fetch variants, potentially -fetch
>
> > those helpers with return value imply a full memory barrier around it, but
> > others without return value do not. Do you have any numbers to show
> > the impact? Maybe atomic_add/dec_return_relaxed can help this.
>
> The generic variant uses  arch_cmpxchg() for all atomic variants
> without any extra barriers. Therefore, on platforms that use generic
> implementations there won't be performance differences except for an
> extra branch that checks results when VM_BUG_ON is enabled.
>
> On x86 the difference between the two is the following
>
> atomic_add:
>    lock add %eax,(%rsi)
>
> atomic_fetch_add:
>    lock xadd %eax,(%rsi)
>
> atomic_fetch_add_relaxed:
>    lock xadd %eax,(%rsi)
>
> No differences between relaxed and non relaxed variants. However, we

Right. There is no difference on x86. Maybe there are differences in
other architectures.

> used lock xadd instead of lock add. I am not sure if the performance
> difference is going to be different.
>
> Pasha