Re: [PATCH percpu/for-4.7-fixes 1/2] percpu: fix synchronization between chunk->map_extend_work and chunk destruction

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >  	if (is_atomic) {
> >  		margin = 3;
> > 
> >  		if (chunk->map_alloc <
> > -		    chunk->map_used + PCPU_ATOMIC_MAP_MARGIN_LOW &&
> > -		    pcpu_async_enabled)
> > -			schedule_work(&chunk->map_extend_work);
> > +		    chunk->map_used + PCPU_ATOMIC_MAP_MARGIN_LOW) {
> > +			if (list_empty(&chunk->map_extend_list)) {

> So why this list_empty condition? Doesn't it deserve a comment then? And

Because doing list_add() twice corrupts the list.  I'm not sure that
deserves a comment.  We can do list_move() instead but that isn't
necessarily better.

> isn't using a list an overkill in that case?

That would require rebalance work to scan all chunks whenever it's
scheduled and if a lot of atomic allocations are taking place, it has
some possibility to become expensive with a lot of chunks.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun