[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 4/9] hugetlb: disable region_add file_region coalescing
On 2/5/20 5:43 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:57 PM Mike Kravetz <> wrote:
>> On 2/3/20 3:22 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
>>> A follow up patch in this series adds hugetlb cgroup uncharge info the
>>> file_region entries in resv->regions. The cgroup uncharge info may
>>> differ for different regions, so they can no longer be coalesced at
>>> region_add time. So, disable region coalescing in region_add in this
>>> patch.
>>> Behavior change:
>>> Say a resv_map exists like this [0->1], [2->3], and [5->6].
>>> Then a region_chg/add call comes in region_chg/add(f=0, t=5).
>>> Old code would generate resv->regions: [0->5], [5->6].
>>> New code would generate resv->regions: [0->1], [1->2], [2->3], [3->5],
>>> [5->6].
>>> Special care needs to be taken to handle the resv->adds_in_progress
>>> variable correctly. In the past, only 1 region would be added for every
>>> region_chg and region_add call. But now, each call may add multiple
>>> regions, so we can no longer increment adds_in_progress by 1 in region_chg,
>>> or decrement adds_in_progress by 1 after region_add or region_abort. Instead,
>>> region_chg calls add_reservation_in_range() to count the number of regions
>>> needed and allocates those, and that info is passed to region_add and
>>> region_abort to decrement adds_in_progress correctly.
>>> We've also modified the assumption that region_add after region_chg
>>> never fails. region_chg now pre-allocates at least 1 region for
>>> region_add. If region_add needs more regions than region_chg has
>>> allocated for it, then it may fail.
>>> Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <>
>>> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <>
>> This is the same as the previous version. My late comment was that we
>> need to rethink the disabling of region coalescing. This is especially
>> important for private mappings where there will be one region for huge
>> page. I know that you are working on this issue. Please remove my
>> Reviewed-by: when sending out the next version.
> Yes to address that there is a new patch in the series, which
> re-enables the coalescing when the hugetlb cgroup uncharge info is the
> same. I guess it could be squashed with this one but I thought it was
> better to implement that patch on top of the patch that enabled shared
> accounting, because that is the patch that sets hugetlb cgroup info on
> the file region entries.
> Let me know what you think.

Thanks, I saw there was an additional patch but I did not get to it yet.
I'll take a look and see how involved the changes are.

Mike Kravetz

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-06 03:13    [W:0.060 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site