On Wed, 2024-12-18 at 12:20 -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:56:04AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > +static bool should_lru_add_drain(void)
> > +{
> > + struct cpu_fbatches *fbatches =
> > this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches);
>
> You will need either a local_lock or preempt_disable to access the
> per
> cpu batches.
>
Why is that? Can the per-cpu batches disappear on us
while we're trying to access them, without that
local_lock or preempt_disable?
I'm not trying to protect against accidentally reading
the wrong CPU's numbers, since we could be preempted
and migrated to another CPU immediately after returning
from should_lru_add_drain, but do want to keep things
safe against other potential issues.
> > + int pending = folio_batch_count(&fbatches->lru_add);
> > + pending += folio_batch_count(&fbatches->lru_deactivate);
> > + pending += folio_batch_count(&fbatches-
> > >lru_deactivate_file);
> > + pending += folio_batch_count(&fbatches->lru_lazyfree);
> > +
> > + /* Don't bother draining unless we have several pages
> > pending. */
> > + return pending > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void maybe_lru_add_drain(void)
>
> Later it might also make sense to see if other users of
> lru_add_drain()
> should be fine with maybe_lru_add_drain() as well.
Agreed. I think there are a few other users where this
could make sense, including munmap.
--
All Rights Reversed.
