From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763F0C433DB for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FEB619F6 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:40:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 00FEB619F6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 79FDB6B0289; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 776B46B028D; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:40:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 641DA6B0292; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:40:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0155.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.155]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA4E6B0289 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00985180ACF7F for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:40:53 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77954122428.07.F9F7302 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB29500152C for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:40:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1616575252; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MSeWI8SL/YcKLwp8y07WFlFzVGAJyujolNeghuzIIcE=; b=anO1EMpBrzHoGfoq3gQgKvbkHisYvo012Mh6Sxx43scKdBFlm6O5Enp4KVWm/DKmvLS/fb KWDL1gLDIOn7BZQvdxwJ6zVTAWSh9K4xw31o+xU70RkgXQRk/y8YwkYnDkPvHPJWnTrwrF DU5Z2mfAANkmnNUMupNYsXmodpc0DZg= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59ECEAB9B; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:40:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:40:49 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Mike Kravetz Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt , Oscar Salvador , David Hildenbrand , Muchun Song , David Rientjes , Miaohe Lin , Peter Zijlstra , Matthew Wilcox , HORIGUCHI NAOYA , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Waiman Long , Peter Xu , Mina Almasry , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/8] hugetlb: change free_pool_huge_page to remove_pool_huge_page Message-ID: References: <20210319224209.150047-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com> <20210319224209.150047-6-mike.kravetz@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0AB29500152C X-Stat-Signature: gmtozknz1faqrqgpbfqtksdwseqh33s5 Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf01; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1616575252-317935 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue 23-03-21 18:03:07, Mike Kravetz wrote: [...] > Since you brought up cgroups ... what is your opinion on lock hold time > in hugetlb_cgroup_css_offline? We could potentially be calling > hugetlb_cgroup_move_parent for every hugetlb page while holding the lock > with interrupts disabled. I am not familiar with hugetlb cgroup code TBH. But from a quick look there is not much of heavy lifting there. If we find out that this is really visible we can do the lock dance with cond_resched and retry with the iteration again. Or is there any strong reason to process the list in a single go? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs