[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211018073552.GA11960@linux>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:35:53 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nghia Le <nghialm78@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] hugetlb: add demote hugetlb page sysfs interfaces
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 01:24:28PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> In general, the resize_lock prevents unexpected consequences when
> multiple users are modifying the number of pages in a pool concurrently
> from the proc/sysfs interfaces. The mutex is acquired here because we
> are modifying (decreasing) the pool size.
Yes, I got that. My question was wrt. n_mask initialization:
+ if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
+ init_nodemask_of_node(&nodes_allowed, nid);
+ n_mask = &nodes_allowed;
+ } else {
+ n_mask = &node_states[N_MEMORY];
+ }
AFAICS, this does not need to be protected.
with that addressed:
Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists