linux/mm/mempool.c

505 lines
14 KiB

mm, page_alloc: distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd __GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred to as the "atomic reserve". __GFP_HIGH users get access to the first lower watermark and can be called the "high priority reserve". Over time, callers had a requirement to not block when fallback options were available. Some have abused __GFP_WAIT leading to a situation where an optimisitic allocation with a fallback option can access atomic reserves. This patch uses __GFP_ATOMIC to identify callers that are truely atomic, cannot sleep and have no alternative. High priority users continue to use __GFP_HIGH. __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM identifies callers that can sleep and are willing to enter direct reclaim. __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM to identify callers that want to wake kswapd for background reclaim. __GFP_WAIT is redefined as a caller that is willing to enter direct reclaim and wake kswapd for background reclaim. This patch then converts a number of sites o __GFP_ATOMIC is used by callers that are high priority and have memory pools for those requests. GFP_ATOMIC uses this flag. o Callers that have a limited mempool to guarantee forward progress clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM but keep __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. bio allocations fall into this category where kswapd will still be woken but atomic reserves are not used as there is a one-entry mempool to guarantee progress. o Callers that are checking if they are non-blocking should use the helper gfpflags_allow_blocking() where possible. This is because checking for __GFP_WAIT as was done historically now can trigger false positives. Some exceptions like dm-crypt.c exist where the code intent is clearer if __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is used instead of the helper due to flag manipulations. o Callers that built their own GFP flags instead of starting with GFP_KERNEL and friends now also need to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. The first key hazard to watch out for is callers that removed __GFP_WAIT and was depending on access to atomic reserves for inconspicuous reasons. In some cases it may be appropriate for them to use __GFP_HIGH. The second key hazard is callers that assembled their own combination of GFP flags instead of starting with something like GFP_KERNEL. They may now wish to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. It's almost certainly harmless if it's missed in most cases as other activity will wake kswapd. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-11-06 16:28:21 -08:00
mm, page_alloc: distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd __GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred to as the "atomic reserve". __GFP_HIGH users get access to the first lower watermark and can be called the "high priority reserve". Over time, callers had a requirement to not block when fallback options were available. Some have abused __GFP_WAIT leading to a situation where an optimisitic allocation with a fallback option can access atomic reserves. This patch uses __GFP_ATOMIC to identify callers that are truely atomic, cannot sleep and have no alternative. High priority users continue to use __GFP_HIGH. __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM identifies callers that can sleep and are willing to enter direct reclaim. __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM to identify callers that want to wake kswapd for background reclaim. __GFP_WAIT is redefined as a caller that is willing to enter direct reclaim and wake kswapd for background reclaim. This patch then converts a number of sites o __GFP_ATOMIC is used by callers that are high priority and have memory pools for those requests. GFP_ATOMIC uses this flag. o Callers that have a limited mempool to guarantee forward progress clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM but keep __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. bio allocations fall into this category where kswapd will still be woken but atomic reserves are not used as there is a one-entry mempool to guarantee progress. o Callers that are checking if they are non-blocking should use the helper gfpflags_allow_blocking() where possible. This is because checking for __GFP_WAIT as was done historically now can trigger false positives. Some exceptions like dm-crypt.c exist where the code intent is clearer if __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is used instead of the helper due to flag manipulations. o Callers that built their own GFP flags instead of starting with GFP_KERNEL and friends now also need to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. The first key hazard to watch out for is callers that removed __GFP_WAIT and was depending on access to atomic reserves for inconspicuous reasons. In some cases it may be appropriate for them to use __GFP_HIGH. The second key hazard is callers that assembled their own combination of GFP flags instead of starting with something like GFP_KERNEL. They may now wish to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. It's almost certainly harmless if it's missed in most cases as other activity will wake kswapd. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-11-06 16:28:21 -08:00
mempool: fix and document synchronization and memory barrier usage mempool_alloc/free() use undocumented smp_mb()'s. The code is slightly broken and misleading. The lockless part is in mempool_free(). It wants to determine whether the item being freed needs to be returned to the pool or backing allocator without grabbing pool->lock. Two things need to be guaranteed for correct operation. 1. pool->curr_nr + #allocated should never dip below pool->min_nr. 2. Waiters shouldn't be left dangling. For #1, The only necessary condition is that curr_nr visible at free is from after the allocation of the element being freed (details in the comment). For most cases, this is true without any barrier but there can be fringe cases where the allocated pointer is passed to the freeing task without going through memory barriers. To cover this case, wmb is necessary before returning from allocation and rmb is necessary before reading curr_nr. IOW, ALLOCATING TASK FREEING TASK update pool state after alloc; wmb(); pass pointer to freeing task; read pointer; rmb(); read pool state to free; The current code doesn't have wmb after pool update during allocation and may theoretically, on machines where unlock doesn't behave as full wmb, lead to pool depletion and deadlock. smp_wmb() needs to be added after successful allocation from reserved elements and smp_mb() in mempool_free() can be replaced with smp_rmb(). For #2, the waiter needs to add itself to waitqueue and then check the wait condition and the waker needs to update the wait condition and then wake up. Because waitqueue operations always go through full spinlock synchronization, there is no need for extra memory barriers. Furthermore, mempool_alloc() is already holding pool->lock when it decides that it needs to wait. There is no reason to do unlock - add waitqueue - test condition again. It can simply add itself to waitqueue while holding pool->lock and then unlock and sleep. This patch adds smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool, replaces smp_mb() in mempool_free() with smp_rmb() and extend pool->lock over waitqueue addition. More importantly, it explains what memory barriers do and how the lockless testing is correct. -v2: Oleg pointed out that unlock doesn't imply wmb. Added explicit smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool and updated comments accordingly. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:08:23 -08:00
mm, page_alloc: distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd __GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred to as the "atomic reserve". __GFP_HIGH users get access to the first lower watermark and can be called the "high priority reserve". Over time, callers had a requirement to not block when fallback options were available. Some have abused __GFP_WAIT leading to a situation where an optimisitic allocation with a fallback option can access atomic reserves. This patch uses __GFP_ATOMIC to identify callers that are truely atomic, cannot sleep and have no alternative. High priority users continue to use __GFP_HIGH. __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM identifies callers that can sleep and are willing to enter direct reclaim. __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM to identify callers that want to wake kswapd for background reclaim. __GFP_WAIT is redefined as a caller that is willing to enter direct reclaim and wake kswapd for background reclaim. This patch then converts a number of sites o __GFP_ATOMIC is used by callers that are high priority and have memory pools for those requests. GFP_ATOMIC uses this flag. o Callers that have a limited mempool to guarantee forward progress clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM but keep __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. bio allocations fall into this category where kswapd will still be woken but atomic reserves are not used as there is a one-entry mempool to guarantee progress. o Callers that are checking if they are non-blocking should use the helper gfpflags_allow_blocking() where possible. This is because checking for __GFP_WAIT as was done historically now can trigger false positives. Some exceptions like dm-crypt.c exist where the code intent is clearer if __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is used instead of the helper due to flag manipulations. o Callers that built their own GFP flags instead of starting with GFP_KERNEL and friends now also need to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. The first key hazard to watch out for is callers that removed __GFP_WAIT and was depending on access to atomic reserves for inconspicuous reasons. In some cases it may be appropriate for them to use __GFP_HIGH. The second key hazard is callers that assembled their own combination of GFP flags instead of starting with something like GFP_KERNEL. They may now wish to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. It's almost certainly harmless if it's missed in most cases as other activity will wake kswapd. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-11-06 16:28:21 -08:00
mm, page_alloc: distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd __GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred to as the "atomic reserve". __GFP_HIGH users get access to the first lower watermark and can be called the "high priority reserve". Over time, callers had a requirement to not block when fallback options were available. Some have abused __GFP_WAIT leading to a situation where an optimisitic allocation with a fallback option can access atomic reserves. This patch uses __GFP_ATOMIC to identify callers that are truely atomic, cannot sleep and have no alternative. High priority users continue to use __GFP_HIGH. __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM identifies callers that can sleep and are willing to enter direct reclaim. __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM to identify callers that want to wake kswapd for background reclaim. __GFP_WAIT is redefined as a caller that is willing to enter direct reclaim and wake kswapd for background reclaim. This patch then converts a number of sites o __GFP_ATOMIC is used by callers that are high priority and have memory pools for those requests. GFP_ATOMIC uses this flag. o Callers that have a limited mempool to guarantee forward progress clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM but keep __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. bio allocations fall into this category where kswapd will still be woken but atomic reserves are not used as there is a one-entry mempool to guarantee progress. o Callers that are checking if they are non-blocking should use the helper gfpflags_allow_blocking() where possible. This is because checking for __GFP_WAIT as was done historically now can trigger false positives. Some exceptions like dm-crypt.c exist where the code intent is clearer if __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is used instead of the helper due to flag manipulations. o Callers that built their own GFP flags instead of starting with GFP_KERNEL and friends now also need to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. The first key hazard to watch out for is callers that removed __GFP_WAIT and was depending on access to atomic reserves for inconspicuous reasons. In some cases it may be appropriate for them to use __GFP_HIGH. The second key hazard is callers that assembled their own combination of GFP flags instead of starting with something like GFP_KERNEL. They may now wish to specify __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. It's almost certainly harmless if it's missed in most cases as other activity will wake kswapd. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-11-06 16:28:21 -08:00
mempool: fix and document synchronization and memory barrier usage mempool_alloc/free() use undocumented smp_mb()'s. The code is slightly broken and misleading. The lockless part is in mempool_free(). It wants to determine whether the item being freed needs to be returned to the pool or backing allocator without grabbing pool->lock. Two things need to be guaranteed for correct operation. 1. pool->curr_nr + #allocated should never dip below pool->min_nr. 2. Waiters shouldn't be left dangling. For #1, The only necessary condition is that curr_nr visible at free is from after the allocation of the element being freed (details in the comment). For most cases, this is true without any barrier but there can be fringe cases where the allocated pointer is passed to the freeing task without going through memory barriers. To cover this case, wmb is necessary before returning from allocation and rmb is necessary before reading curr_nr. IOW, ALLOCATING TASK FREEING TASK update pool state after alloc; wmb(); pass pointer to freeing task; read pointer; rmb(); read pool state to free; The current code doesn't have wmb after pool update during allocation and may theoretically, on machines where unlock doesn't behave as full wmb, lead to pool depletion and deadlock. smp_wmb() needs to be added after successful allocation from reserved elements and smp_mb() in mempool_free() can be replaced with smp_rmb(). For #2, the waiter needs to add itself to waitqueue and then check the wait condition and the waker needs to update the wait condition and then wake up. Because waitqueue operations always go through full spinlock synchronization, there is no need for extra memory barriers. Furthermore, mempool_alloc() is already holding pool->lock when it decides that it needs to wait. There is no reason to do unlock - add waitqueue - test condition again. It can simply add itself to waitqueue while holding pool->lock and then unlock and sleep. This patch adds smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool, replaces smp_mb() in mempool_free() with smp_rmb() and extend pool->lock over waitqueue addition. More importantly, it explains what memory barriers do and how the lockless testing is correct. -v2: Oleg pointed out that unlock doesn't imply wmb. Added explicit smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool and updated comments accordingly. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:08:23 -08:00
mempool: fix and document synchronization and memory barrier usage mempool_alloc/free() use undocumented smp_mb()'s. The code is slightly broken and misleading. The lockless part is in mempool_free(). It wants to determine whether the item being freed needs to be returned to the pool or backing allocator without grabbing pool->lock. Two things need to be guaranteed for correct operation. 1. pool->curr_nr + #allocated should never dip below pool->min_nr. 2. Waiters shouldn't be left dangling. For #1, The only necessary condition is that curr_nr visible at free is from after the allocation of the element being freed (details in the comment). For most cases, this is true without any barrier but there can be fringe cases where the allocated pointer is passed to the freeing task without going through memory barriers. To cover this case, wmb is necessary before returning from allocation and rmb is necessary before reading curr_nr. IOW, ALLOCATING TASK FREEING TASK update pool state after alloc; wmb(); pass pointer to freeing task; read pointer; rmb(); read pool state to free; The current code doesn't have wmb after pool update during allocation and may theoretically, on machines where unlock doesn't behave as full wmb, lead to pool depletion and deadlock. smp_wmb() needs to be added after successful allocation from reserved elements and smp_mb() in mempool_free() can be replaced with smp_rmb(). For #2, the waiter needs to add itself to waitqueue and then check the wait condition and the waker needs to update the wait condition and then wake up. Because waitqueue operations always go through full spinlock synchronization, there is no need for extra memory barriers. Furthermore, mempool_alloc() is already holding pool->lock when it decides that it needs to wait. There is no reason to do unlock - add waitqueue - test condition again. It can simply add itself to waitqueue while holding pool->lock and then unlock and sleep. This patch adds smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool, replaces smp_mb() in mempool_free() with smp_rmb() and extend pool->lock over waitqueue addition. More importantly, it explains what memory barriers do and how the lockless testing is correct. -v2: Oleg pointed out that unlock doesn't imply wmb. Added explicit smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool and updated comments accordingly. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:08:23 -08:00
mempool: fix and document synchronization and memory barrier usage mempool_alloc/free() use undocumented smp_mb()'s. The code is slightly broken and misleading. The lockless part is in mempool_free(). It wants to determine whether the item being freed needs to be returned to the pool or backing allocator without grabbing pool->lock. Two things need to be guaranteed for correct operation. 1. pool->curr_nr + #allocated should never dip below pool->min_nr. 2. Waiters shouldn't be left dangling. For #1, The only necessary condition is that curr_nr visible at free is from after the allocation of the element being freed (details in the comment). For most cases, this is true without any barrier but there can be fringe cases where the allocated pointer is passed to the freeing task without going through memory barriers. To cover this case, wmb is necessary before returning from allocation and rmb is necessary before reading curr_nr. IOW, ALLOCATING TASK FREEING TASK update pool state after alloc; wmb(); pass pointer to freeing task; read pointer; rmb(); read pool state to free; The current code doesn't have wmb after pool update during allocation and may theoretically, on machines where unlock doesn't behave as full wmb, lead to pool depletion and deadlock. smp_wmb() needs to be added after successful allocation from reserved elements and smp_mb() in mempool_free() can be replaced with smp_rmb(). For #2, the waiter needs to add itself to waitqueue and then check the wait condition and the waker needs to update the wait condition and then wake up. Because waitqueue operations always go through full spinlock synchronization, there is no need for extra memory barriers. Furthermore, mempool_alloc() is already holding pool->lock when it decides that it needs to wait. There is no reason to do unlock - add waitqueue - test condition again. It can simply add itself to waitqueue while holding pool->lock and then unlock and sleep. This patch adds smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool, replaces smp_mb() in mempool_free() with smp_rmb() and extend pool->lock over waitqueue addition. More importantly, it explains what memory barriers do and how the lockless testing is correct. -v2: Oleg pointed out that unlock doesn't imply wmb. Added explicit smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool and updated comments accordingly. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:08:23 -08:00
mempool: fix and document synchronization and memory barrier usage mempool_alloc/free() use undocumented smp_mb()'s. The code is slightly broken and misleading. The lockless part is in mempool_free(). It wants to determine whether the item being freed needs to be returned to the pool or backing allocator without grabbing pool->lock. Two things need to be guaranteed for correct operation. 1. pool->curr_nr + #allocated should never dip below pool->min_nr. 2. Waiters shouldn't be left dangling. For #1, The only necessary condition is that curr_nr visible at free is from after the allocation of the element being freed (details in the comment). For most cases, this is true without any barrier but there can be fringe cases where the allocated pointer is passed to the freeing task without going through memory barriers. To cover this case, wmb is necessary before returning from allocation and rmb is necessary before reading curr_nr. IOW, ALLOCATING TASK FREEING TASK update pool state after alloc; wmb(); pass pointer to freeing task; read pointer; rmb(); read pool state to free; The current code doesn't have wmb after pool update during allocation and may theoretically, on machines where unlock doesn't behave as full wmb, lead to pool depletion and deadlock. smp_wmb() needs to be added after successful allocation from reserved elements and smp_mb() in mempool_free() can be replaced with smp_rmb(). For #2, the waiter needs to add itself to waitqueue and then check the wait condition and the waker needs to update the wait condition and then wake up. Because waitqueue operations always go through full spinlock synchronization, there is no need for extra memory barriers. Furthermore, mempool_alloc() is already holding pool->lock when it decides that it needs to wait. There is no reason to do unlock - add waitqueue - test condition again. It can simply add itself to waitqueue while holding pool->lock and then unlock and sleep. This patch adds smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool, replaces smp_mb() in mempool_free() with smp_rmb() and extend pool->lock over waitqueue addition. More importantly, it explains what memory barriers do and how the lockless testing is correct. -v2: Oleg pointed out that unlock doesn't imply wmb. Added explicit smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool and updated comments accordingly. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:08:23 -08:00
mempool: fix and document synchronization and memory barrier usage mempool_alloc/free() use undocumented smp_mb()'s. The code is slightly broken and misleading. The lockless part is in mempool_free(). It wants to determine whether the item being freed needs to be returned to the pool or backing allocator without grabbing pool->lock. Two things need to be guaranteed for correct operation. 1. pool->curr_nr + #allocated should never dip below pool->min_nr. 2. Waiters shouldn't be left dangling. For #1, The only necessary condition is that curr_nr visible at free is from after the allocation of the element being freed (details in the comment). For most cases, this is true without any barrier but there can be fringe cases where the allocated pointer is passed to the freeing task without going through memory barriers. To cover this case, wmb is necessary before returning from allocation and rmb is necessary before reading curr_nr. IOW, ALLOCATING TASK FREEING TASK update pool state after alloc; wmb(); pass pointer to freeing task; read pointer; rmb(); read pool state to free; The current code doesn't have wmb after pool update during allocation and may theoretically, on machines where unlock doesn't behave as full wmb, lead to pool depletion and deadlock. smp_wmb() needs to be added after successful allocation from reserved elements and smp_mb() in mempool_free() can be replaced with smp_rmb(). For #2, the waiter needs to add itself to waitqueue and then check the wait condition and the waker needs to update the wait condition and then wake up. Because waitqueue operations always go through full spinlock synchronization, there is no need for extra memory barriers. Furthermore, mempool_alloc() is already holding pool->lock when it decides that it needs to wait. There is no reason to do unlock - add waitqueue - test condition again. It can simply add itself to waitqueue while holding pool->lock and then unlock and sleep. This patch adds smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool, replaces smp_mb() in mempool_free() with smp_rmb() and extend pool->lock over waitqueue addition. More importantly, it explains what memory barriers do and how the lockless testing is correct. -v2: Oleg pointed out that unlock doesn't imply wmb. Added explicit smp_wmb() after successful allocation from reserved pool and updated comments accordingly. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:08:23 -08:00