[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFr6A927XhhiciFj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:36:19 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] hugetlb: recompute min_count when dropping
hugetlb_lock
On Tue 23-03-21 16:18:08, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> Here is another thought.
> In patch 5 you suggest removing all pages from hugetlb with the lock
> held, and adding them to a list. Then, drop the lock and free all
> pages on the list. If we do this, then the value computed here (min_count)
> can not change while we are looping. So, this patch would be unnecessary.
> That is another argument in favor of batching the frees.
>
> Unless there is something wrong in my thinking, I am going to take that
> approach and drop this patch.
Makes sense
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists