[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82e268d4-22fa-3e33-8988-a3a367fae7b1@ispras.ru>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 00:54:26 +0300
From: Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: z3fold: suspicious return with spinlock held
On 11.03.2017 00:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:22:12AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> z3fold_reclaim_page() contains the only return that may
>> leave the function with pool->lock spinlock held.
>>
>> 669 spin_lock(&pool->lock);
>> 670 if (kref_put(&zhdr->refcount, release_z3fold_page)) {
>> 671 atomic64_dec(&pool->pages_nr);
>> 672 return 0;
>> 673 }
>>
>> May be we need spin_unlock(&pool->lock); just before return?
>
> I would tend to agree. sparse warns about this, and also about two
> other locking problems ... which I'm not sure are really problems so
> much as missing annotations?
>
> mm/z3fold.c:467:35: warning: context imbalance in 'z3fold_alloc' - unexpected unlock
> mm/z3fold.c:519:26: warning: context imbalance in 'z3fold_free' - different lock contexts for basic block
> mm/z3fold.c:581:12: warning: context imbalance in 'z3fold_reclaim_page' - different lock contexts for basic block
>
I also do not see problems in z3fold_alloc() and z3fold_free().
But I am unaware of sparse annotations that can help here.
--
Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists