Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212071-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240608155316.451600-1-flintglass@gmail.com> <20240608155316.451600-2-flintglass@gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=P1Ojb71AEJ2gzQTrfWidFPcJZmoNxEwji7TceBN-szCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPpoddeigM44jhTA8Ua=+J4MC1MikouBZVoPrCW2LZF+9r5YeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPpoddeigM44jhTA8Ua=+J4MC1MikouBZVoPrCW2LZF+9r5YeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:28:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYp3GbuXV9G5bAZ1DetMmepV5ynciA+ukae7CKuxpXDJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm: zswap: fix global shrinker memcg iteration
To: Takero Funaki <flintglass@gmail.com>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	Domenico Cerasuolo <cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 11:16=E2=80=AFAM Takero Funaki <flintglass@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>
> 2024=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=8812=E6=97=A5(=E6=B0=B4) 3:26 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gma=
il.com>:
>
> >
> > As I have noted in v0, I think this is unnecessary and makes it more co=
nfusing.
> >
>
> Does spin_lock() ensure that compiler optimizations do not remove
> memory access to an external variable? I think we need to use
> READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE for shared variable access even under a spinlock.
> For example,
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/mmu_notifier.c#L234

In this example, it seems like mmu_interval_set_seq() updates
interval_sub->invalidate_seq locklessly using WRITE_ONCE(). I think
this is why READ_ONCE() is required in that particular case.

>
> isn't this a common use case of READ_ONCE?
> ```c
> bool shared_flag =3D false;
> spinlock_t flag_lock;
>
> void somefunc(void) {
>     for (;;) {
>         spin_lock(&flag_lock);
>         /* check external updates */
>         if (READ_ONCE(shared_flag))
>             break;
>         /* do something */
>         spin_unlock(&flag_lock);
>     }
>     spin_unlock(&flag_lock);
> }
> ```
> Without READ_ONCE, the check can be extracted from the loop by optimizati=
on.

According to Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, lock acquiring
functions are implicit memory barriers. Otherwise, the compiler would
be able to pull any memory access outside of the lock critical section
and locking wouldn't be reliable.