Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] mm: vmalloc: Offload free_vmap_area_lock lock

[Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 08:06:09AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/06/23 at 09:16pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > >  static void free_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	struct vmap_node *vn = addr_to_node(va->va_start);
> > > > +	int vn_id = decode_vn_id(va->flags);
> > > >  
> > > >  	/*
> > > >  	 * Remove from the busy tree/list.
> > > > @@ -1594,12 +1629,19 @@ static void free_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va)
> > > >  	unlink_va(va, &vn->busy.root);
> > > >  	spin_unlock(&vn->busy.lock);
> > > >  
> > > > -	/*
> > > > -	 * Insert/Merge it back to the free tree/list.
> > > > -	 */
> > > > -	spin_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
> > > > -	merge_or_add_vmap_area_augment(va, &free_vmap_area_root, &free_vmap_area_list);
> > > > -	spin_unlock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
> > > > +	if (vn_id >= 0) {
> > > 
> > > In alloc_vmap_area(), the vn_id is encoded into va->flags. When
> > > allocation failed, the vn_id = 0. Here should we change to check 'if
> > > (vn_id > 0)' becasue the vn_id == 0 means no available vn_id encoded
> > > into. And I do not get how we treat the case vn_id truly is 0.
> > > 
> > > 	va->flags = (addr != vend) ? encode_vn_id(vn_id) : 0;
> > >
> > Yes, vn_id always >= 0, so it is positive since it is an index.
> > We encode a vn_id as vn_id + 1. For example if it is zero we write 1.
> > 
> > If not node allocation path or an error zero is written. Decoding
> > is done as: zero - 1 = -1, so it is negative value, i.e. decode_vn_id()
> > function returns -1.
> 
> Ah, I see it now, thanks. It would be helpful to add some explanation
> above decode_vn_id() lest people misunderstand this like me?
> 
I got that feeling also. This makes sense, so i will comment it!

--
Uladzislau Rezki