Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:33:43 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,memory_hotplug: Drop unneeded locking
Message-ID: <20210601103334.GA5927@linux>
References: <20210531093958.15021-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <679d311a-8ad4-bb53-18f0-11190a2bf1b5@arm.com>
 <20210601074737.GA30768@linux>
 <f655ced2-281e-33ee-e1ea-89a0e13fc7a3@redhat.com>
 <20210601081250.GA32364@linux>
 <YLYCIZ5XNXGoE95p@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YLYCIZ5XNXGoE95p@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:47:13AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> While you are touching this and want to drill all the way down then it
> would be reasonable to drop pgdat resize locks as well.
> It is only used in the early boot code and we have one executing thread
> context per numa node during the deferred initialization. I haven't
> checked all potential side effects the lock might have but it sounds
> like there is quite some clean up potential over there.

I am not sure about that. True is that deferred_init_memmap() gets executed
on numa-thread so it's not a problem for itself, but we also have deferred_grow_zone().
It might be that while deferred_init_memmap() is running, we also have calls to
deferred_grow_zone() for the same node and that would cause some trouble wrt.
first_deferred_pfn. I need to double check it, but IIRC, that is the case.


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3