[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aP83Phkqnf7PGGmL@hyeyoo>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 18:11:26 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/19] slab: add optimized sheaf refill from partial
list
On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 04:20:56PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 03:52:31PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > + if (unlikely(!list_empty(&pc.slabs))) {
> > + struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, node);
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>
> Do we surely know that trylock will succeed when
> we succeeded to acquire it in get_partial_node_bulk()?
>
> I think the answer is yes, but just to double check :)
Oh wait, this is not per-cpu lock, so the answer is no!
We need to check gfpflags_allow_spinning() before spinning then.
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists