lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Avoid soft lockup in set_max_huge_pages()
From
Date
Hi Dave

On 7/26/16 11:58 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/26/2016 08:44 AM, Jia He wrote:
>> This patch is to fix such soft lockup. I thouhgt it is safe to call
>> cond_resched() because alloc_fresh_gigantic_page and alloc_fresh_huge_page
>> are out of spin_lock/unlock section.
> Yikes. So the call site for both the things you patch is this:
>
>> while (count > persistent_huge_pages(h)) {
> ...
>> spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
>> if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
>> ret = alloc_fresh_gigantic_page(h, nodes_allowed);
>> else
>> ret = alloc_fresh_huge_page(h, nodes_allowed);
>> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
> and you choose to patch both of the alloc_*() functions. Why not just
> fix it at the common call site? Seems like that
> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock) could be a cond_resched_lock() which would fix
> both cases.
I agree to move the cond_resched() to a common site in set_max_huge_pages().
But do you mean the spin_lock in this while loop can be replaced by
cond_resched_lock?
IIUC, cond_resched_lock = spin_unlock+cond_resched+spin_lock.
So could you please explain more details about it? Thanks.

B.R.
Justin
> Also, putting that cond_resched() inside the for_each_node*() loop is an
> odd choice. It seems to indicate that the loops can take a long time,
> which really isn't the case. The _loop_ isn't long, right?
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-27 04:21    [W:0.054 / U:1.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site