[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtW6n_YUbZOPFbivzn-HP4Q2yi0DrUoQ3JAjSYy5m17VWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 01:48:29 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, paulmck@...nel.org,
mchehab+huawei@...nel.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, oneukum@...e.com,
anshuman.khandual@....com, jroedel@...e.de,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
"Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
Xiongchun duan <duanxiongchun@...edance.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v15 4/8] mm: hugetlb: alloc the vmemmap
pages associated with each HugeTLB page
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:28 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon 15-02-21 23:36:49, Muchun Song wrote:
> [...]
> > > There shouldn't be any real reason why the memory allocation for
> > > vmemmaps, or handling vmemmap in general, has to be done from within the
> > > hugetlb lock and therefore requiring a non-sleeping semantic. All that
> > > can be deferred to a more relaxed context. If you want to make a
> >
> > Yeah, you are right. We can put the freeing hugetlb routine to a
> > workqueue. Just like I do in the previous version (before v13) patch.
> > I will pick up these patches.
>
> I haven't seen your v13 and I will unlikely have time to revisit that
> version. I just wanted to point out that the actual allocation doesn't
> have to happen from under the spinlock. There are multiple ways to go
> around that. Dropping the lock would be one of them. Preallocation
> before the spin lock is taken is another. WQ is certainly an option but
> I would take it as the last resort when other paths are not feasible.
>
"Dropping the lock" and "Preallocation before the spin lock" can limit
the context of put_page to non-atomic context. I am not sure if there
is a page puted somewhere under an atomic context. e.g. compaction.
I am not an expert on this.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists