Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 13:03:59 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Cc:     <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <xialonglong1@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add cond_resched() in swapin_walk_pmd_entry()
Message-Id: <20221205130359.2c81c5df0fb777cf55495a02@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20221205140327.72304-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
References: <20221205140327.72304-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 22:03:27 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote:

> When handle MADV_WILLNEED in madvise(), the soflockup may be occurred
> in swapin_walk_pmd_entry() if swapin lots of memory on slow device,
> add a cond_resched() into it to avoid the possible softlockup.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ static int swapin_walk_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long start,
>  			put_page(page);
>  	}
>  	swap_read_unplug(splug);
> +	cond_resched();
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

I wonder if this would be better in walk_pmd_range(), to address other
very large walk attempts.