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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 12.22.5.238 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=12.22.5.238; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
Message-ID: <2542a1be-f7dc-de2f-51cd-28a1ed5c3bda@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 18:02:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page
Content-Language: en-US
To:     <paulmck@kernel.org>
CC:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        John Dias <joaodias@google.com>,
        "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>
References: <Ynw6mauQuNhrOAHy@google.com>
 <f7bcda22-8ffe-67be-36bc-fcde58d8884a@nvidia.com>
 <YnxCCPZUfgQNXSg6@google.com>
 <8f083802-7ab0-15ec-b37d-bc9471eea0b1@nvidia.com>
 <20220511234534.GG1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <ea64b36c-ecc1-74db-dd2e-909e7e507ef8@nvidia.com>
 <0d90390c-3624-4f93-f8bd-fb29e92237d3@nvidia.com>
 <20220512002207.GJ1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <YnxUTxnCJ6EsmjEi@google.com>
 <f7ff4186-e629-a5da-3f4d-ec629b0c8dd9@nvidia.com>
 <20220512004949.GK1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220512004949.GK1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2022 01:01:35.7211
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3e966772-c9d1-4b09-0617-08da33b2f67d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[12.22.5.238];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT013.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN8PR12MB3588
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,
        SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
        version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 5/11/22 17:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> Thanks Paul for explaining the state of things.
>>
>> Minchan, how about something like very close to your original draft,
>> then, but with a little note, and the "&" as well:
>>
>> int __mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
>>
>> /*
>>   * Defend against future compiler LTO features, or code refactoring
>>   * that inlines the above function, by forcing a single read. Because, this
>>   * routine races with set_pageblock_migratetype(), and we want to avoid
>>   * reading zero, when actually one or the other flags was set.
>>   */
>> int mt = __READ_ONCE(__mt);
>>
>> if (mt & (MIGRATE_CMA | MIGRATE_ISOLATE))
>>      return false;
>>
>>
>> ...which should make everyone comfortable and protected from the
>> future sins of the compiler and linker teams? :)
> 
> This would work, but it would force a store to the stack and an immediate
> reload.  Which might be OK on this code path.
> 
> But using READ_ONCE() in (I think?) __get_pfnblock_flags_mask()
> would likely generate the same code that is produced today.
> 
> 	word = READ_ONCE(bitmap[word_bitidx]);

Ah right, I like that much, much better. The READ_ONCE is placed where
it actually clearly matters, rather than several layers removed.

> 
> But I could easily have missed a turn in that cascade of functions.  ;-)
> 
> Or there might be some code path that really hates a READ_ONCE() in
> that place.

I certainly hope not. I see free_one_page(), among other things, calls
this. But having the correct READ_ONCE() in a central place seems worth
it, unless we know that this will cause a measurable slowdown somewhere.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul