Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/z3fold: move decrement of pool->pages_nr into
 __release_z3fold_page()
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
CC:     "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
References: <20220219092533.12596-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <20220219092533.12596-7-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <dba43259e1fe4e36a0bdbe97efaaca2f@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <baeab92c-d966-2dc2-d952-c7f3faf2a229@huawei.com>
 <03647389a32045f38ec18b090548a26d@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <CAM4kBBLoaESLRr28kZ901e-nikDbnQnUu9h47OsA2phxp-pvuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <bd5c8187c4034016a22977c9ca54c1b0@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <CAM4kBB+oHqn=AAqKrxgN=e7iyRiZs0HDx8J585Vugf4kyWfF5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <7fab39f6-1a65-9577-4ddf-f3e984474844@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 10:27:14 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAM4kBB+oHqn=AAqKrxgN=e7iyRiZs0HDx8J585Vugf4kyWfF5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/3/2 18:19, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:12 AM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Atomic operations aren't magic.
>>>> Atomic operations are (at best) one slow locked bus cycle.
>>>> Acquiring a lock is the same.
>>>> Releasing a lock might be cheaper, but is probably a locked bus cycle.
>>>>
>>>> So if you use state_lock to protect pages_nr then you lose an atomic
>>>> operation for the decrement and gain one (for the unlock) in the increment.
>>>> That is even or maybe a slight gain.
>>>> OTOH a 64bit atomic is a PITA on some 32bit systems.
>>>> (In fact any atomic is a PITA on sparc32.)
>>>
>>> It's actually *stale_lock* and it's very misleading to use it for this.
>>> I would actually like to keep atomics but I have no problem with
>>> making it 32-bit for 32-bit systems. Would that work for you guys?
>>
>> It would be better to rename the lock.
> 
> No it would not because that lock is protecting the list of entries
> that could not be immediately freed.
> 

Or could we use pool->lock to do this ?

> ~Vitaly

Vitaly, is the patch itself worth a Reviewed-by tag and go to the mm-tree ? Could this
enhance discussed here be sent as another separate patch or am I supposed to make this
change into the current patch?

Many thanks for comment.

> .
>