Re: [PATCH v5, part3 11/15] mm: use a dedicated lock to protect totalram_pages and zone->managed_pages

[Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com>]

On 05/08/2013 11:27 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 11:17 AM, Jiang Liu wrote:
> 
>> @@ -5186,6 +5189,15 @@ early_param("movablecore", cmdline_parse_movablecore);
>>
>>   #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */
>>
>> +void adjust_managed_page_count(struct page *page, long count)
>> +{
>> +    spin_lock(&managed_page_count_lock);
>> +    page_zone(page)->managed_pages += count;
>> +    totalram_pages += count;
>> +    spin_unlock(&managed_page_count_lock);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(adjust_managed_page_count);
>> +
> 
> Something I should have thought of when I reviewed the patch
> last time, but forgot...
> 
> What happens when the hotplug event adds more pages than fit
> in this zone, and some of the pages should go in the next
> zone?
> 
> For example, think about a 3GB x86_64 machine, which gets
> 2GB of memory hot-added. Roughly half may get added to the
> DMA32 zone, the rest to the NORMAL zone.
> 
> Do the callers of adjust_managed_page_count correctly make
> one call for each zone, or does the above code open up a
> window for a bug?
Hi Rik,
	Thanks for review! 
	Yes, the caller will make one call for each zone. Actually it will
call adjust_managed_page_count() for each page.
	Regards!
	Gerry

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>