Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page

[John Hubbard]

On 5/10/22 4:31 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > +	int __mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> > > +	int mt = __READ_ONCE(__mt);
> >
> > Although I saw the email discussion about this in v2, that discussion
> > didn't go far enough. It started with "don't use volatile", and went
> > on to "try __READ_ONCE() instead", but it should have continued on
> > to "you don't need this at all".
>
> That's really what I want to hear from experts so wanted to learn
> "Why". How could we prevent refetching of the mt if we don't use
> __READ_ONCE or volatile there?
>
> > Because you don't. There is nothing you are racing with, and adding
> > __READ_ONCE() in order to avoid a completely not-going-to-happen
> > compiler re-invocation of a significant code block is just very wrong.
> >
> > So let's just let it go entirely. :)
>
> Yeah, once it's clear for everyone, I am happy to remove the
> unnecessary lines.
>
> > > +
> > > +	if (mt == MIGRATE_CMA || mt == MIGRATE_ISOLATE)

With or without __READ_ONCE() or volatile or anything else,
this code will do what you want. Which is: loosely check
for either of the above.

What functional problem do you think you are preventing
with __READ_ONCE()? Because I don't see one.

thanks,

--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA