[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFr7EbGx25KsYfVg@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:40:49 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: 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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 5/8] hugetlb: change free_pool_huge_page to
remove_pool_huge_page
On Tue 23-03-21 18:03:07, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> Since you brought up cgroups ... what is your opinion on lock hold time
> in hugetlb_cgroup_css_offline? We could potentially be calling
> hugetlb_cgroup_move_parent for every hugetlb page while holding the lock
> with interrupts disabled.
I am not familiar with hugetlb cgroup code TBH. But from a quick look
there is not much of heavy lifting there. If we find out that this is
really visible we can do the lock dance with cond_resched and retry with
the iteration again. Or is there any strong reason to process the list
in a single go?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists