Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6] hugetlb: Add hugetlb.*.numa_stat file | From | Mike Kravetz <> | Date | Fri, 12 Nov 2021 15:36:12 -0800 |
| |
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] hugetlb: Add hugetlb.*.numa_stat file
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>, Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Jue Wang <juew@google.com>, Yang Yao <ygyao@google.com>, Joanna Li <joannali@google.com>, Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@google.com>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Bcc:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=# Don't remove this line #=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On 11/10/21 6:36 PM, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:50 AM Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> +struct hugetlb_cgroup_per_node {
>> + /* hugetlb usage in pages over all hstates. */
>> + atomic_long_t usage[HUGE_MAX_HSTATE];
>
> Why do you use atomic? IIUC, 'usage' is always
> increased/decreased under hugetlb_lock except
> hugetlb_cgroup_read_numa_stat() which is always
> reading it. So I think WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE
> is enough.
Thanks for continuing to work this, I was traveling and unable to
comment.
Unless I am missing something, I do not see a reason for WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE
and would suggest going back to the way this code was in v5.
--
Mike Kravetz
| |