From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>, Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/mempolicy: Skip unnecessary synchronize_rcu()
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 10:10:46 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h60xtw0p.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250602162345.2595696-2-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> (Joshua Hahn's message of "Mon, 2 Jun 2025 09:23:40 -0700")
Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> writes:
> By unconditionally setting wi_state to NULL and conditionally calling
> synchronize_rcu(), we can save an unncessary call when there is no
> old_wi_state.
Per my understanding, in the original code, if !old_wi_state, we will
return immediately instead of calling synchronize_rcu() too. Or I miss
something?
The patch itself is a nice cleanup with reduced line number. Feel free
to add my
Reviewed-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>
in the future version.
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
> ---
> mm/mempolicy.c | 13 +++++--------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 3b1dfd08338b..b0619d0020c9 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -3703,18 +3703,15 @@ static void wi_state_free(void)
> struct weighted_interleave_state *old_wi_state;
>
> mutex_lock(&wi_state_lock);
> -
> old_wi_state = rcu_dereference_protected(wi_state,
> lockdep_is_held(&wi_state_lock));
> - if (!old_wi_state) {
> - mutex_unlock(&wi_state_lock);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> rcu_assign_pointer(wi_state, NULL);
> mutex_unlock(&wi_state_lock);
> - synchronize_rcu();
> - kfree(old_wi_state);
> +
> + if (old_wi_state) {
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + kfree(old_wi_state);
> + }
> }
>
> static struct kobj_attribute wi_auto_attr =
---
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-03 2:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-02 16:23 [PATCH 1/2] mm/mempolicy: Fix incorrect freeing of wi_kobj Joshua Hahn
2025-06-02 16:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/mempolicy: Skip unnecessary synchronize_rcu() Joshua Hahn
2025-06-03 2:10 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2025-06-03 14:31 ` Joshua Hahn
2025-06-02 16:53 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/mempolicy: Fix incorrect freeing of wi_kobj Joshua Hahn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87h60xtw0p.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA \
--to=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=byungchul@sk.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.