From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 0/2] mm: cma: make cma_release() non-blocking
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:15:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3f455d27-6d99-972f-b77f-b5b473b7614d@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201016225254.3853109-1-guro@fb.com>
On 10/16/20 3:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This small patchset makes cma_release() non-blocking and simplifies
> the code in hugetlbfs, where previously we had to temporarily drop
> hugetlb_lock around the cma_release() call.
>
> It should help Zi Yan on his work on 1 GB THPs: splitting a gigantic
> THP under a memory pressure requires a cma_release() call. If it's
> a blocking function, it complicates the already complicated code.
> Because there are at least two use cases like this (hugetlbfs is
> another example), I believe it's just better to make cma_release()
> non-blocking.
>
> It also makes it more consistent with other memory releasing functions
> in the kernel: most of them are non-blocking.
Thanks for looking into this Roman.
I may be missing something, but why does cma_release have to be blocking
today? Certainly, it takes the bitmap in cma_clear_bitmap and could
block. However, I do not see why cma->lock has to be a mutex. I may be
missing something, but I do not see any code protected by the mutex doing
anything that could sleep?
Could we simply change that mutex to a spinlock?
--
Mike Kravetz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-22 0:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-16 22:52 [PATCH rfc 0/2] mm: cma: make cma_release() non-blocking Roman Gushchin
2020-10-16 22:52 ` [PATCH rfc 1/2] " Roman Gushchin
2020-10-16 22:52 ` [PATCH rfc 2/2] mm: hugetlb: don't drop hugetlb_lock around cma_release() call Roman Gushchin
2020-10-22 0:15 ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
2020-10-22 2:33 ` [PATCH rfc 0/2] mm: cma: make cma_release() non-blocking Roman Gushchin
2020-10-22 16:42 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-10-22 17:16 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-10-22 17:25 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-10-22 1:54 ` Xiaqing (A)
2020-10-22 2:45 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-10-22 3:47 ` Xiaqing (A)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3f455d27-6d99-972f-b77f-b5b473b7614d@oracle.com \
--to=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).