On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:04:54 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > It'd be much better to fix the race within alloc_fresh_huge_page(). That
> > function is pretty pathetic.
> >
> > Something like this?
> >
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c~a
> > +++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -105,13 +105,20 @@ static void free_huge_page(struct page *
> >
> > static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(void)
> > {
> > - static int nid = 0;
> > + static int prev_nid;
> > + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(nid_lock);
> > struct page *page;
> > - page = alloc_pages_node(nid, htlb_alloc_mask|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOWARN,
> > - HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER);
> > - nid = next_node(nid, node_online_map);
> > + int nid;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&nid_lock);
> > + nid = next_node(prev_nid, node_online_map);
> > if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> > nid = first_node(node_online_map);
> > + prev_nid = nid;
> > + spin_unlock(&nid_lock);
> > +
> > + page = alloc_pages_node(nid, htlb_alloc_mask|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOWARN,
> > + HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER);
> > if (page) {
> > set_compound_page_dtor(page, free_huge_page);
> > spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
>
> Now that it's gone into the tree, I look at it and wonder, does your
> nid_lock really serve any purpose? We're just doing a simple assignment
> to prev_nid, and it doesn't matter if occasionally two racers choose the
> same node, and there's no protection here against a node being offlined
> before the alloc_pages_node anyway (unsupported? I'm ignorant).
umm, actually, yes, the code as it happens to be structured does mean that
ther is no longer a way in which a race can cause us to pass MAX_NUMNODES
into alloc_pages_node().
Or not. We can call next_node(MAX_NUMNODES, node_online_map) in that race
window, with perhaps bad results.
I think I like the lock ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
