lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/8] hugetlb: call update_and_free_page without hugetlb_lock
On Thu 25-03-21 10:12:05, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 3/25/21 3:55 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 24-03-21 17:28:32, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >> With the introduction of remove_hugetlb_page(), there is no need for
> >> update_and_free_page to hold the hugetlb lock. Change all callers to
> >> drop the lock before calling.
> >>
> >> With additional code modifications, this will allow loops which decrease
> >> the huge page pool to drop the hugetlb_lock with each page to reduce
> >> long hold times.
> >>
> >> The ugly unlock/lock cycle in free_pool_huge_page will be removed in
> >> a subsequent patch which restructures free_pool_huge_page.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > One minor thing below
> >
> > [...]
> >> @@ -2563,22 +2572,37 @@ static void try_to_free_low(struct hstate *h, unsigned long count,
> >> nodemask_t *nodes_allowed)
> >> {
> >> int i;
> >> + struct list_head page_list;
> >> + struct page *page, *next;
> >>
> >> if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
> >> return;
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * Collect pages to be freed on a list, and free after dropping lock
> >> + */
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&page_list);
> >> for_each_node_mask(i, *nodes_allowed) {
> >> - struct page *page, *next;
> >> struct list_head *freel = &h->hugepage_freelists[i];
> >> list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next, freel, lru) {
> >> if (count >= h->nr_huge_pages)
> >> - return;
> >> + goto out;
> >> if (PageHighMem(page))
> >> continue;
> >> remove_hugetlb_page(h, page, false);
> >> - update_and_free_page(h, page);
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&page->lru);
> >
> > What is the point of rhis INIT_LIST_HEAD? Page has been removed from the
> > list by remove_hugetlb_page so it can be added to a new one without any
> > reinitialization.
>
> remove_hugetlb_page just does a list_del. list_del will poison the
> pointers in page->lru. The following list_add will then complain about
> list corruption.

Are you sure? list_del followed by list_add is a normal API usage
pattern AFAIK. INIT_LIST_HEAD is to do the first initialization before
first use.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-25 20:42    [W:0.139 / U:1.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site