Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] vmalloc: Optimize vfree

[Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 05:34:08PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 3/25/26 17:25, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> > On 25/03/2026 4:16 pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 03:02:14PM +0000, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> >>> Sorry, I didn't get it. How does having cond_resched() in this function
> >>> affects __free_contig_range()?
> >>>
> >> It is not. What i am asking is about:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> spin_lock();
> >> free_pages_bulk()
> >> ...
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> so this is not allowed because there is cond_resched() call. We
> >> can remove it and make it possible to invoke free_pages_bulk() under
> >> spin-lock, __but__ only if for example other calls do not sleep:
> >>
> >> __free_contig_range()
> >> memdesc_section()
> >> free_prepared_contig_range()
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The current user of this function is only vfree() which is sleepable.
> >>>
> >> I know. But this function can be used by others soon or later.
> >>
> >> Another option is add a comment, saying that it is only for sleepable
> >> contexts.
> > Thank you for detailed response. I can move cond_resched() to vfree() and make
> > free_pages_bulk() allowed to be called form sleepable context. But I feel the
> > current implementation is better to avoid latency spikes. I'll put explicit
> > comment that this function can only be called from sleepable contexts.
> 
Sounds good!

> That's probably good enough for now. It can accept arbitrarily large
> areas, so the cond_resched() in there is the right thing to do. :)
> 
I agree, since it will be available for other callers, adding the
comment is a right way, so people know :)

--
Uladzislau Rezki