On 9/10/19 4:31 PM, Mina Almasry wrote: > A follow up patch in this series adds hugetlb cgroup uncharge info the > file_region entries in resv->regions. The cgroup uncharge info may > differ for different regions, so they can no longer be coalesced at > region_add time. So, disable region coalescing in region_add in this > patch. > > Behavior change: > > Say a resv_map exists like this [0->1], [2->3], and [5->6]. > > Then a region_chg/add call comes in region_chg/add(f=0, t=5). > > Old code would generate resv->regions: [0->5], [5->6]. > New code would generate resv->regions: [0->1], [1->2], [2->3], [3->5], > [5->6]. > > Special care needs to be taken to handle the resv->adds_in_progress > variable correctly. In the past, only 1 region would be added for every > region_chg and region_add call. But now, each call may add multiple > regions, so we can no longer increment adds_in_progress by 1 in region_chg, > or decrement adds_in_progress by 1 after region_add or region_abort. Instead, > region_chg calls add_reservation_in_range() to count the number of regions > needed and allocates those, and that info is passed to region_add and > region_abort to decrement adds_in_progress correctly. Hate to throw more theoretical examples at you but ... Consider an existing reserv_map like [3-10] Then a region_chg/add call comes in region_chg/add(f=0, t=10). The region_chg is going to return 3 (additional reservations needed), and also out_regions_needed = 1 as it would want to create a region [0-3]. Correct? But, there is nothing to prevent another thread from doing a region_del [5-7] after the region_chg and before region_add. Correct? If so, it seems the region_add would need to create two regions, but there is only one in the cache and we would BUG in get_file_region_entry_from_cache. Am I reading the code correctly? The existing code wants to make sure region_add called after region_chg will never return error. This is why all needed allocations were done in the region_chg call, and it was relatively easy to do in existing code when region_chg would only need one additional region at most. I'm thinking that we may have to make region_chg allocate the worst case number of regions (t - f)/2, OR change to the code such that region_add could return an error. -- Mike Kravetz
