[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <347b3035-26fe-43af-8df4-b1610d305908@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 14:23:58 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: yangge1116@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 21cnbao@...il.com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev, osalvador@...e.de,
liuzixing@...on.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: remove redundant folio_test_hugetlb
On 26.05.25 14:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 23.05.25 10:05, yangge1116@....com wrote:
>> From: Ge Yang <yangge1116@....com>
>>
>> In the isolate_or_dissolve_huge_folio() function, the folio_test_hugetlb()
>> function is called to determine whether a folio is a hugetlb folio.
>> However, in the subsequent alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio() function,
>> the folio_test_hugetlb() function is called again to make the same
>> determination about whether the folio is a hugetlb folio. It appears that
>> the folio_test_hugetlb() check in the isolate_or_dissolve_huge_folio()
>> function can be removed. Additionally, a similar issue exists in the
>> replace_free_hugepage_folios() function, and it should be addressed as
>> well.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Ge Yang <yangge1116@....com>
>> ---
>> mm/hugetlb.c | 51 +++++++++++++--------------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> index 6c2e007..6e46f2f 100644
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -2787,20 +2787,24 @@ void restore_reserve_on_error(struct hstate *h, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> /*
>> * alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio - Allocate a new folio and dissolve
>> * the old one
>> - * @h: struct hstate old page belongs to
>> * @old_folio: Old folio to dissolve
>> * @list: List to isolate the page in case we need to
>> * Returns 0 on success, otherwise negated error.
>> */
>> -static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>> - struct folio *old_folio, struct list_head *list)
>> +static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct folio *old_folio,
>> + struct list_head *list)
>> {
>> - gfp_t gfp_mask = htlb_alloc_mask(h) | __GFP_THISNODE;
>> + gfp_t gfp_mask;
>> + struct hstate *h;
>> int nid = folio_nid(old_folio);
>> struct folio *new_folio = NULL;
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> retry:
>> + /*
>> + * The old_folio might have been dissolved from under our feet, so make sure
>> + * to carefully check the state under the lock.
>> + */
>> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> if (!folio_test_hugetlb(old_folio)) {
>> /*
>> @@ -2829,8 +2833,10 @@ static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>> cond_resched();
>> goto retry;
>> } else {
>> + h = folio_hstate(old_folio);
>> if (!new_folio) {
>> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> + gfp_mask = htlb_alloc_mask(h) | __GFP_THISNODE;
>> new_folio = alloc_buddy_hugetlb_folio(h, gfp_mask, nid,
>> NULL, NULL);
>> if (!new_folio)
>> @@ -2874,35 +2880,20 @@ static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>>
>> int isolate_or_dissolve_huge_folio(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
>> {
>> - struct hstate *h;
>> int ret = -EBUSY;
>>
>> /*
>> - * The page might have been dissolved from under our feet, so make sure
>> - * to carefully check the state under the lock.
>> - * Return success when racing as if we dissolved the page ourselves.
>> - */
>> - spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> - if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
>> - h = folio_hstate(folio);
>> - } else {
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> - return 0;
>> - }
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> -
>> - /*
>> * Fence off gigantic pages as there is a cyclic dependency between
>> * alloc_contig_range and them. Return -ENOMEM as this has the effect
>> * of bailing out right away without further retrying.
>> */
>> - if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
>> + if (folio_order(folio) > MAX_PAGE_ORDER)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> if (folio_ref_count(folio) && folio_isolate_hugetlb(folio, list))
>> ret = 0;
>> else if (!folio_ref_count(folio))
>> - ret = alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, list);
>> + ret = alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(folio, list);
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>> @@ -2916,7 +2907,6 @@ int isolate_or_dissolve_huge_folio(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
>> */
>> int replace_free_hugepage_folios(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>> {
>> - struct hstate *h;
>> struct folio *folio;
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> @@ -2925,23 +2915,8 @@ int replace_free_hugepage_folios(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>> while (start_pfn < end_pfn) {
>> folio = pfn_folio(start_pfn);
>>
>> - /*
>> - * The folio might have been dissolved from under our feet, so make sure
>> - * to carefully check the state under the lock.
>> - */
>> - spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> - if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
>> - h = folio_hstate(folio);
>> - } else {
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> - start_pfn++;
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>
> ^ oh my, that is bad code.
>
> Taking the hugetlb_lock for each and ever page in the range.
>
> Let me find that code and nack it.
Already in 6.15, gah.
Please convert that code to never ever take any hugeglb locks unless we
are clearly dealing with a hugetlb folios.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists