On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > I think the compiler is allowed to turn this into
> >
> > if (ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page)) > 0 &&
> > ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page)) < MAX_ORDER)
> > low_pfn += (1UL << ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page))) - 1;
> >
> > since the inline function has a return value of unsigned long but gcc may
> > not do this. I think
> >
> > /*
> > * Big fat comment describing why we're using ACCESS_ONCE(), that
> > * we're ok to race, and that this is meaningful only because of
> > * the previous PageBuddy() check.
> > */
> > unsigned long pageblock_order = ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page));
> >
> > is better.
>
> I've talked about it with a gcc guy and (although he didn't actually see the
> code so it might be due to me not explaining it perfectly), the compiler will
> inline page_order_unsafe() so that there's effectively.
>
> unsigned long freepage_order = ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page));
>
> and now it cannot just replace all freepage_order occurences with new
> page_private() accesses. So thanks to the inlining, the volatile qualification
> propagates to where it matters. It makes sense to me, but if it's according to
> standard or gcc specific, I don't know.
>
I hate to belabor this point, but I think gcc does treat it differently.
If you look at the assembly comparing your patch to if you do
unsigned long freepage_order = ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page));
instead, then if you enable annotation you'll see that gcc treats the
store as page_x->D.y.private in your patch vs. MEM[(volatile long unsigned
int *)page_x + 48B] with the above.
I don't have the ability to prove that all versions of gcc optimization
will not choose to reaccess page_private(page) here, but it does show that
at least gcc 4.6.3 does not consider them to be equivalents.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
