On 25.08.22 04:34, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>
> On 2022/8/24 16:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.08.22 09:19, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>> The pgdat->kswapd could be accessed concurrently by kswapd_run() and
>>> kcompactd(), it don't be protected by any lock, which could leads to
>>> data races, adding READ/WRITE_ONCE() to slince it.
>> Okay, I think this patch here makes it clearer that we really just want
>> proper synchronization instead of hacking around it.
>>
>> What speaks against protecting pgdat->kswapd this using some proper
>> locking primitive?
>
> as comments about kswapd in struct pglist_data, pgdat->kswapd should be
>
> protected by mem_hotplug_begin/done(), how about this way?
>
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index 640fa76228dd..62018f35242a 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -1983,7 +1983,13 @@ static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order)
>
> static bool kswapd_is_running(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> {
> - return pgdat->kswapd && task_is_running(pgdat->kswapd);
> + bool running;
> +
> + mem_hotplug_begin();
> + running = pgdat->kswapd && task_is_running(pgdat->kswapd);
> + mem_hotplug_end();
> +
> + return running;
> }
I'd much rather just use a dedicated lock that does not involve memory
hotplug.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
