On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 01:39:57PM +0000, Adrian Huang12 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Could you please test it:
> >
> > <snip>
> > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c index 03b82fb8ecd3..6dc204b8495a
> > 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -2190,10 +2190,12 @@ static void purge_vmap_node(struct work_struct
> > *work) {
> > struct vmap_node *vn = container_of(work,
> > struct vmap_node, purge_work);
> > + unsigned long resched_threshold;
> > struct vmap_area *va, *n_va;
> > LIST_HEAD(local_list);
> >
> > vn->nr_purged = 0;
> > + resched_threshold = lazy_max_pages() << 1;
> >
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(va, n_va, &vn->purge_list, list) {
> > unsigned long nr = (va->va_end - va->va_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT; @@
> > -2210,6 +2212,9 @@ static void purge_vmap_node(struct work_struct *work)
> > atomic_long_sub(nr, &vmap_lazy_nr);
> > vn->nr_purged++;
> >
> > + if (atomic_long_read(&vmap_lazy_nr) < resched_threshold)
> > + cond_resched();
> > +
> > if (is_vn_id_valid(vn_id) && !vn->skip_populate)
> > if (node_pool_add_va(vn, va))
> > continue;
> > <snip>
>
> This patch can fix the issue. Feel free to add my tested-by.
> Tested-by: Adrian Huang <ahuang12@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
Thank you. I will add you tested-by!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
