On 14.01.21 12:31, Miaohe Lin wrote: > When gbl_reserve is 0, hugetlb_acct_memory() will do nothing except holding > and releasing hugetlb_lock. So, what's the deal then? Adding more code? If this is a performance improvement, we should spell it out. Otherwise I don't see a real benefit of this patch. > > Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/hugetlb.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c > index 737b2dce19e6..fe2da9ad6233 100644 > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c > @@ -5241,7 +5241,8 @@ long hugetlb_unreserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long start, long end, > * reservations to be released may be adjusted. > */ > gbl_reserve = hugepage_subpool_put_pages(spool, (chg - freed)); > - hugetlb_acct_memory(h, -gbl_reserve); > + if (gbl_reserve) > + hugetlb_acct_memory(h, -gbl_reserve); > > return 0; > } > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
