<snip>
>However since there are 800 threads, I see there might be an opportunity
>for another thread to enter in the next 'numa_scan_period' while
>we have not gotten till numab_state allocation.
>
>There should be simpler ways to overcome like Vlastimil already pointed
>in the other thread, and having lock is an overkill.
>
>for e.g.,
>numab_state = kzalloc(..)
>
>if we see that some other thread able to successfully assign
>vma->numab_state with their allocation (with cmpxchg), simply
>free your allocation.
>
>Can you please check if my understanding is correct?
Thanks for Vlastimil's and Raghu's reviews and comments.
Yes, your understanding is correct. Before submitting this patch,
I had two internal proposals: lock and cmpxchg. Here is the my cmpxchg
version (Test passed). If you're ok with this cmpxchg version, may I have
your reviewed-by? I'll send a v2 then.
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 3356315d7e64..7f99df294583 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3399,10 +3399,16 @@ static void task_numa_work(struct callback_head *work)
/* Initialise new per-VMA NUMAB state. */
if (!vma->numab_state) {
- vma->numab_state = kzalloc(sizeof(struct vma_numab_state),
- GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!vma->numab_state)
+ struct vma_numab_state *ptr;
+
+ ptr = kzalloc(sizeof(*ptr), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!ptr)
+ continue;
+
+ if (cmpxchg(&vma->numab_state, NULL, ptr)) {
+ kfree(ptr);
continue;
+ }
vma->numab_state->start_scan_seq = mm->numa_scan_seq;
