On 11/11/24 11:08, Adrian Huang wrote:
> <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.
Yeah much better, thanks!
Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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;
>
>
