[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:42:44 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: Disable softIRQ when taking hugetlb_lock
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Andi Kleen wrote:
>Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> writes:
>> +void free_huge_page(struct page *page)
>> +{
>> + struct hugetlb_free_page_work work;
>> +
>> + work.page = page;
>> + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&work.work, free_huge_page_workfn);
>> + queue_work(hugetlb_free_page_wq, &work.work);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Wait until free_huge_page is done.
>> + */
>> + flush_work(&work.work);
>> + destroy_work_on_stack(&work.work);
>
>Does flushing really work in softirq context?
>
>Anyways, waiting seems inefficient over fire'n'forget
Yep. I was only thinking about the workerfn not blocking
and therefore we could wait safely, but flush_work has no
such guarantees.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists