From: Davidlohr Bueso <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Michal Hocko <email@example.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Mike Kravetz <email@example.com>,
Waiman Long <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:17:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191216161748.tgi2oictlfqy6azi@linux-p48b> (raw)
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Michal Hocko wrote:
>I am afraid that work_struct is too large to be stuffed into the struct
>page array (because of the lockdep part).
Yeah, this needs to be done without touching struct page.
Which is why I had done the stack allocated way in this patch, but we
cannot wait for it to complete in irq, so that's out the window. Andi
had suggested percpu allocated work items, but having played with the
idea over the weekend, I don't see how we can prevent another page being
freed on the same cpu before previous work on the same cpu is complete
(cpu0 wants to free pageA, schedules the work, in the mean time cpu0
wants to free pageB and workerfn for pageA still hasn't been called).
>I think that it would be just safer to make hugetlb_lock irq safe. Are
>there any other locks that would require the same?
It would be simpler. Any performance issues that arise would probably
be only seen in microbenchmarks, assuming we want to have full irq safety.
If we don't need to worry about hardirq, then even better.
The subpool lock would also need to be irq safe.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-16 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-11 19:46 [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: Disable softIRQ when taking hugetlb_lock Waiman Long
2019-12-11 22:04 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-11 22:19 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-12 1:11 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-12 6:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-12-12 6:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-12-12 19:04 ` [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue Davidlohr Bueso
2019-12-12 19:22 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-12 19:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-12-12 20:52 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-12 21:04 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-16 13:26 ` Michal Hocko
2019-12-16 15:38 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-16 18:44 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-17 9:00 ` Michal Hocko
2019-12-17 18:05 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-18 12:18 ` hugetlbfs testing coverage (was: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue) Michal Hocko
2019-12-12 21:01 ` [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge_page() to a workqueue Waiman Long
2019-12-16 13:37 ` Michal Hocko
2019-12-16 16:17 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-16 16:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2019-12-16 17:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-12-16 19:08 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-16 19:13 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-12 21:32 ` [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: Disable softIRQ when taking hugetlb_lock Andi Kleen
2019-12-12 22:42 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-12-11 23:05 ` Andi Kleen
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).