From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE61C4332F for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DA0708E0005; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 03:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D513B8E0001; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 03:27:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C19D28E0005; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 03:27:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B257E8E0001 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 03:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89730140B36 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:27:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80222089332.27.F94CFED Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42FDC0006 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:27:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=HmuzgaDB; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1670574465; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=5PNq7BuzrIj0WOAorIXdgJHnJPF+VBpzrzEg+7HTfZI=; b=BZy9t21/e9wAMkjfRvVaSHQ6X0z1+1RvJGo/Z6tMwyyAqBTsWYqjhTOIP8V6jk7Z37rfke JTghu6dwbvlSBy2N4FVC0sJhwcYoy6vl1UjAc1WX8ZI5Fw7/KYn7grOR6xQsWZDvmSCHIk dwlhQrivqqtAiRef7Jy1DDWZS3TbUE0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=HmuzgaDB; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1670574465; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=J9qoUiLea4xdHqHzVKZjjnICTNA3Z+c7S0No0XL4R1CTOiaAAEZwCDoWFZRc81kCaRb6FR OX6ACyB/ZRZ8O9S7IZxhxT4bNAqNKmxoeFuCAKNluvd6buzWkJGGKSJUd71vEq5oP8mkGS J1uOUWsOuROmqfBJvHXGXyySdmskV90= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1670574463; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5PNq7BuzrIj0WOAorIXdgJHnJPF+VBpzrzEg+7HTfZI=; b=HmuzgaDBzYKN9kwErTW8UgDvST53elj2alSde9RvVEw8wKyAMXuoheEexIiedQrNGFSnQI J1k6a/jyzYj4KL3PH1KBF2/6+MHokQTYx5oZ/XwblK0XLx2P698Rm+3shy/MCT6XMjx0w6 EIzH97/MCnX8kFRHhrxwkoHHv9YBdpc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-486-iRY_Cp07O4Gy04162ffIrA-1; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 03:27:39 -0500 X-MC-Unique: iRY_Cp07O4Gy04162ffIrA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74B6529ABA1B; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:27:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-32.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.32]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 844442166B26; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:27:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:27:34 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com, willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] mm/vmalloc.c: add flags to mark vm_map_ram area Message-ID: References: <20221204013046.154960-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20221204013046.154960-3-bhe@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E42FDC0006 X-Stat-Signature: mj7gnqtw8c84e9o84egai1zd6fztwsko X-HE-Tag: 1670574463-530133 X-HE-Meta: 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 6pw== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 12/08/22 at 08:52pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 04:03:41PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: ...... > > > > @@ -1967,6 +1972,9 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > > kfree(vb); > > > > return ERR_CAST(va); > > > > } > > > > + spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > > + va->flags = VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK; > > > > + spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > > > > > The per-cpu code was created as a fast per-cpu allocator because of high > > > vmalloc lock contention. If possible we should avoid of locking of the > > > vmap_area_lock. Because it has a high contention. > > > > Fair enough. I made below draft patch to address the concern. By > > adding argument va_flags to alloc_vmap_area(), we can pass the > > vm_map_ram flags into alloc_vmap_area and filled into vmap_area->flags. > > With this, we don't need add extra action to acquire vmap_area_root lock > > and do the flags setting. Is it OK to you? > > > > From 115f6080b339d0cf9dd20c5f6c0d3121f6b22274 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Baoquan He > > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 11:08:14 +0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: change alloc_vmap_area() to pass in va_flags > > > > With this change, we can pass and set vmap_area->flags for vm_map_ram area > > in alloc_vmap_area(). Then no extra action need be added to acquire > > vmap_area_lock when doing the vmap_area->flags setting. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He > > --- > > mm/vmalloc.c | 13 +++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > index ccaa461998f3..d74eddec352f 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -1586,7 +1586,9 @@ preload_this_cpu_lock(spinlock_t *lock, gfp_t gfp_mask, int node) > > static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size, > > unsigned long align, > > unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend, > > - int node, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > + int node, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > + unsigned long va_flags) > > +) > > { > > struct vmap_area *va; > > unsigned long freed; > > @@ -1630,6 +1632,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size, > > va->va_start = addr; > > va->va_end = addr + size; > > va->vm = NULL; > > + va->flags = va_flags; > > > > spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock); > > insert_vmap_area(va, &vmap_area_root, &vmap_area_list); > > @@ -1961,7 +1964,8 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > > va = alloc_vmap_area(VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE, VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE, > > VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, > > - node, gfp_mask); > > + node, gfp_mask, > > + VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK); > > if (IS_ERR(va)) { > > kfree(vb); > > return ERR_CAST(va); > > @@ -2258,7 +2262,8 @@ void *vm_map_ram(struct page **pages, unsigned int count, int node) > > } else { > > struct vmap_area *va; > > va = alloc_vmap_area(size, PAGE_SIZE, > > - VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, node, GFP_KERNEL); > > + VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, > > + node, GFP_KERNEL, VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK); > > if (IS_ERR(va)) > > return NULL; > > > > @@ -2498,7 +2503,7 @@ static struct vm_struct *__get_vm_area_node(unsigned long size, > > if (!(flags & VM_NO_GUARD)) > > size += PAGE_SIZE; > > > > - va = alloc_vmap_area(size, align, start, end, node, gfp_mask); > > + va = alloc_vmap_area(size, align, start, end, node, gfp_mask, 0); > > if (IS_ERR(va)) { > > kfree(area); > > return NULL; > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > Yes, this is better than it was before. Adding an extra parameter makes > it more valid and logical. That's great. I will add this in v2.