On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:38 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 14-01-21 21:47:36, Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > @@ -1770,6 +1789,28 @@ int dissolve_free_huge_page(struct page *page)
> > > > int nid = page_to_nid(head);
> > > > if (h->free_huge_pages - h->resv_huge_pages == 0)
> > > > goto out;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We should make sure that the page is already on the free list
> > > > + * when it is dissolved.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (unlikely(!PageHugeFreed(head))) {
> > > > + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Theoretically, we should return -EBUSY when we
> > > > + * encounter this race. In fact, we have a chance
> > > > + * to successfully dissolve the page if we do a
> > > > + * retry. Because the race window is quite small.
> > > > + * If we seize this opportunity, it is an optimization
> > > > + * for increasing the success rate of dissolving page.
> > > > + */
> > > > + while (PageHeadHuge(head) && !PageHugeFreed(head))
> > > > + cond_resched();
> > >
> > > Sorry, I should have raised that when replying to the previous version
> > > already but we have focused more on other things. Is there any special
> > > reason that you didn't simply
> > > if (!PageHugeFreed(head)) {
> > > spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > > cond_resched();
> > > goto retry;
> > > }
> > >
> > > This would be less code and a very slight advantage would be that the
> > > waiter might get blocked on the spin lock while the concurrent freeing
> > > is happening. But maybe you wanted to avoid exactly this contention?
> > > Please put your thinking into the changelog.
> >
> > I want to avoid the lock contention. I will add this reason
> > to the changelog. Thanks.
>
> Please also explain why it matters and whether an unintended contention
> is a real problem.
I have no idea about this, it is just my opinion.
I will follow your suggestion.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
