Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm, memcg: narrow the scope of percpu_charge_mutex
From: Michal Hocko <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-03 07:11:33
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
From: Michal Hocko <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-03 07:11:33
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On Tue 03-08-21 14:29:13, Miaohe Lin wrote: [...]
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 616d1a72ece3..6210b1124929 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c@@ -2208,11 +2208,11 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages) */ static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg) { - static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex); int cpu, curcpu; + static atomic_t drainer = ATOMIC_INIT(0); /* If someone's already draining, avoid adding running more workers. */ - if (!mutex_trylock(&percpu_charge_mutex)) + if (atomic_cmpxchg(&drainer, 0, 1) != 0) return; /* * Notify other cpus that system-wide "drain" is running@@ -2244,7 +2244,7 @@ static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg) } } put_cpu(); - mutex_unlock(&percpu_charge_mutex); + atomic_set(&drainer, 0);
atomic_set doesn't imply memory barrier IIRC. Is this safe? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs