[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201220011835.GU15600@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 01:18:35 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
NitinGupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> about scheduling in atomic context.
>
> To fix that and to improve RT properties of zsmalloc, remove that
> bit spinlock completely and use a bit flag instead.
Isn't this just "I open coded bit spinlock to make the lockdep
warnings go away"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists