From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: Make alloc_contig_range handle in-use hugetlb pages
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YDi1gSdDXErJ+SHK@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210222135137.25717-3-osalvador@suse.de>
On Mon 22-02-21 14:51:37, Oscar Salvador wrote:
[...]
> @@ -2394,9 +2397,19 @@ bool isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page(struct page *page)
> */
> if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
> return ret;
> -
> - if (!page_count(head) && alloc_and_dissolve_huge_page(h, head))
> +retry:
> + if (page_count(head) && isolate_huge_page(head, list)) {
> ret = true;
> + } else if (!page_count(head)) {
This is rather head spinning. Do we need to test page_count in the else
branch? Do you want to optimize for a case where the page cannot be
isolated because of page_huge_active?
> + int err = alloc_and_dissolve_huge_page(h, head);
> +
> + if (!err) {
> + ret = true;
> + } else if (err == -EBUSY && try_again) {
> + try_again = false;
> + goto retry;
> + }
Is this retry once logic really needed? Does it really give us any real
benefit? alloc_and_dissolve_huge_page already retries when the page is
being freed.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-26 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-22 13:51 [PATCH v3 0/2] Make alloc_contig_range handle Hugetlb pages Oscar Salvador
2021-02-22 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: Make alloc_contig_range handle free hugetlb pages Oscar Salvador
2021-02-25 20:03 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-02-26 9:48 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-02-26 8:35 ` Michal Hocko
2021-02-26 8:38 ` Michal Hocko
2021-02-26 9:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-02-26 9:47 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-02-26 9:45 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-02-26 9:51 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-01 14:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-04 10:19 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-03-04 10:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-04 10:41 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-02-22 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: Make alloc_contig_range handle in-use " Oscar Salvador
2021-02-25 23:05 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-02-26 8:46 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2021-02-26 10:24 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-02-26 10:27 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-02-26 12:46 ` Michal Hocko
2021-02-28 13:43 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-03-05 17:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-01 12:43 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Make alloc_contig_range handle Hugetlb pages David Hildenbrand
2021-03-01 12:57 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-03-01 12:59 ` David Hildenbrand
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=YDi1gSdDXErJ+SHK@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.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).