Re: [PATCH v2] locking/local_lock, mm: Replace localtry_ helpers with local_trylock_t type

[Shakeel Butt]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 11:26:35AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/2/25 23:40, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 1:56 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:52:45PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Partially revert commit 0aaddfb06882 ("locking/local_lock: Introduce localtry_lock_t").
> >> > Remove localtry_*() helpers, since localtry_lock() name might
> >> > be misinterpreted as "try lock".
> >> >
> >> > Introduce local_trylock[_irqsave]() helpers that only work
> >> > with newly introduced local_trylock_t type.
> >> > Note that attempt to use local_trylock[_irqsave]() with local_lock_t
> >> > will cause compilation failure.
> >> >
> >> > Usage and behavior in !PREEMPT_RT:
> >> >
> >> > local_lock_t lock;                     // sizeof(lock) == 0
> >> > local_lock(&lock);                     // preempt disable
> >> > local_lock_irqsave(&lock, ...);        // irq save
> >> > if (local_trylock_irqsave(&lock, ...)) // compilation error
> >> >
> >> > local_trylock_t lock;                  // sizeof(lock) == 4
> >>
> >> Is there a reason for this 'acquired' to be int? Can it be uint8_t? No
> >> need to change anything here but I plan to change it later to compact as
> >> much as possible within one (or two) cachline for memcg stocks.
> > 
> > I don't see any issue. I can make it u8 right away.
> 
> Are you planning to put the lock near other <64bit sized values in memcg
> stock? Otherwise it will be padded anyway?
> 

Something like following:

struct memcg_stock_pcp {
	local_trylock_t stock_lock;
	uint8_t size;
	uint8_t nr_pages[NR_CACHED];
	struct mem_cgroup *cached[NR_CACHED];
...
}

and then experiment with different values of NR_CACHED which puts all
these fields in 1 or 2 cachelines.