lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/vmalloc: Move draining areas out of caller context
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 06:12:48PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 04:50:14PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 05:39:12PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > @@ -1768,7 +1776,8 @@ static void free_vmap_area_noflush(struct vmap_area *va)
> > >
> > > /* After this point, we may free va at any time */
> > > if (unlikely(nr_lazy > lazy_max_pages()))
> > > - try_purge_vmap_area_lazy();
> > > + if (!atomic_xchg(&drain_vmap_work_in_progress, 1))
> > > + schedule_work(&drain_vmap_work);
> > > }
> >
> > Is it necessary to have drain_vmap_work_in_progress? The documentation
> > says:
> >
> > * This puts a job in the kernel-global workqueue if it was not already
> > * queued and leaves it in the same position on the kernel-global
> > * workqueue otherwise.
> >
> > and the implementation seems to use test_and_set_bit() to ensure this
> > is true.
> >
> It checks pending state, if the work is in run-queue you can place it
> one more time. The motivation of having it is to prevent the drain work
> of being placed several times at once what i see on my stress testing.
>
> CPU_1: invokes vfree() -> queues the drain work -> TASK_RUNNING
> CPU_2: invokes vfree() -> queues the drain work one more time since it was not pending

But why not unconditionally call schedule_work() here?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-25 20:02    [W:0.060 / U:0.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site