Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 3 May 2022 16:17:02 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nitesh Lal <nilal@redhat.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alex Belits <abelits@belits.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Oscar Shiang <oscar0225@livemail.tw>
Subject: Re: [patch v12 12/13] mm: vmstat_refresh: avoid queueing work item
 if cpu stats are clean
Message-ID: <YnF/rkiGa2aoJGTl@fuller.cnet>
References: <20220315153132.717153751@fedora.localdomain>
 <20220315153314.287031403@fedora.localdomain>
 <874k2fyopx.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <874k2fyopx.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:23:06AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15 2022 at 12:31, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >  	/*
> >  	 * The regular update, every sysctl_stat_interval, may come later
> > @@ -1948,9 +1977,19 @@ int vmstat_refresh(struct ctl_table *tab
> >  	 * transiently negative values, report an error here if any of
> >  	 * the stats is negative, so we know to go looking for imbalance.
> >  	 */
> > -	err = schedule_on_each_cpu(refresh_vm_stats);
> > -	if (err)
> > -		return err;
> > +	cpus_read_lock();
> > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		struct work_struct *work = per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu);
> > +
> > +		INIT_WORK(work, refresh_vm_stats);
> > +		if (need_update(cpu) || need_drain_remote_zones(cpu))
> 
> Of course that makes sense in general, but now you have two ways of
> deciding whether updating this is required.
> 
>    1) The above
> 
>    2) The per CPU boolean which tells whether vmstats are dirty or not.
> 
> Can we have a third method perhaps?

Ok, will think of a third method to increase clarity :-)

By the fourth method it will be clear for sure!