[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <atnweqyv7rnyzei3at2dm4xxca4ctvuod2w7brejg4b5zydgdm@xobzurjmjhy5>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:52:22 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: decouple memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead from stock_lock
(I was trying to reply last week but my email stopped working, so trying
again)
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 10:06:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:06:23 -0700 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> > The function memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead works on the stock of a remote dead
> > CPU and drain_obj_stock works on the given stock instead of local stock,
> > so there is no need to take local stock_lock anymore.
> >
> > @@ -1964,10 +1964,10 @@ static int memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
> >
> > stock = &per_cpu(memcg_stock, cpu);
> >
> > - /* drain_obj_stock requires stock_lock */
> > - local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags);
> > - drain_obj_stock(stock);
> > - local_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags);
> > + local_irq_save(flag);
> > + /* stock of a remote dead cpu, no need for stock_lock. */
> > + __drain_obj_stock(stock);
> > + local_irq_restore(flag);
> >
>
> s/flag/flags/
>
> Obviously what-i-got isn't what-you-tested. Please check what happened
> here,
Sorry about that. I tested the previous version where I had
drain_obj_stock() as a separate function but after seeing that there is
just one caller, I manually inlined it but forgot to test before
sending.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists