lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 29/34] mm: slub: Move flush_cpu_slab() invocations __free_slab() invocations out of IRQ context
Date
On 6/10/21 12:29 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(flush_lock);
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct slub_flush_work, slub_flush);
>> +
>> static void flush_all(struct kmem_cache *s)
>> {
>> - on_each_cpu_cond(has_cpu_slab, flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
>> + struct slub_flush_work *sfw;
>> + unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>> + cpus_read_lock();
>> + mutex_lock(&flush_lock);
>> +
>
> Hi, Vlastimil! Could you please point why do you lock cpus first and
> mutex only after? Why not mutex_lock + cpus_read_lock instead?

Good question! I must admit I didn't think about it much and just followed the
order that was in the original Sebastian's patch [1]
But there was a good reason for this order as some paths via
__kmem_cache_shutdown() and __kmem_cache_shrink() were alreadu called under
cpus_read_lock. Meanwhile mainline (me, actually) removed those, so now it
doesn't seem to be a need to keep this order anymore and we could switch it.

Thanks,
Vlastimil

[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git/tree/patches/0005-mm-slub-Move-flush_cpu_slab-invocations-__free_slab-.patch?h=linux-5.12.y-rt-patches


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-10 10:32    [W:0.078 / U:1.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site