[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426005919.GA9699@swordfish>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:59:19 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Streetman <dan.streetman@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zpool: use workqueue for zpool_destroy
On (04/25/16 15:18), Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:20:10PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > Add a work_struct to struct zpool, and change zpool_destroy_pool to
> > defer calling the pool implementation destroy.
> >
> > The zsmalloc pool destroy function, which is one of the zpool
> > implementations, may sleep during destruction of the pool. However
> > zswap, which uses zpool, may call zpool_destroy_pool from atomic
> > context. So we need to defer the call to the zpool implementation
> > to destroy the pool.
> >
> > This is essentially the same as Yu Zhao's proposed patch to zsmalloc,
> > but moved to zpool.
>
> Thanks, Dan. Sergey also mentioned another call path that triggers the
> same problem (BUG: scheduling while atomic):
> rcu_process_callbacks()
> __zswap_pool_release()
> zswap_pool_destroy()
> zswap_cpu_comp_destroy()
> cpu_notifier_register_begin()
> mutex_lock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
> So I was thinking zswap_pool_destroy() might be done in workqueue in zswap.c.
> This way we fix both call paths.
right, I'm not sure the patch addressed all of the issues.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists