[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:33:34 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, kys@...rosoft.com,
haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
osalvador@...e.de, malat@...ian.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, jrdr.linux@...il.com,
yasu.isimatu@...il.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
aaron.lu@...el.com, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, vatsa@...eaurora.org,
vinmenon@...eaurora.org, getarunks@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] memory_hotplug: Free pages as higher order
On Wed 10-10-18 22:26:41, Arun KS wrote:
> On 2018-10-10 21:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 10/5/18 10:10 AM, Arun KS wrote:
> > > When free pages are done with higher order, time spend on
> > > coalescing pages by buddy allocator can be reduced. With
> > > section size of 256MB, hot add latency of a single section
> > > shows improvement from 50-60 ms to less than 1 ms, hence
> > > improving the hot add latency by 60%. Modify external
> > > providers of online callback to align with the change.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -655,26 +655,44 @@ void __online_page_free(struct page *page)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__online_page_free);
> > >
> > > -static void generic_online_page(struct page *page)
> > > +static int generic_online_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> > > {
> > > - __online_page_set_limits(page);
> >
> > This is now not called anymore, although the xen/hv variants still do
> > it. The function seems empty these days, maybe remove it as a followup
> > cleanup?
> >
> > > - __online_page_increment_counters(page);
> > > - __online_page_free(page);
> > > + __free_pages_core(page, order);
> > > + totalram_pages += (1UL << order);
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> > > + if (PageHighMem(page))
> > > + totalhigh_pages += (1UL << order);
> > > +#endif
> >
> > __online_page_increment_counters() would have used
> > adjust_managed_page_count() which would do the changes under
> > managed_page_count_lock. Are we safe without the lock? If yes, there
> > should perhaps be a comment explaining why.
>
> Looks unsafe without managed_page_count_lock.
Why does it matter actually? We cannot online/offline memory in
parallel. This is not the case for the boot where we initialize memory
in parallel on multiple nodes. So this seems to be safe currently unless
I am missing something. A comment explaining that would be helpful
though.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists