[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM4kBBJCONeSBUwnH0rb3-cAn5THDFapQ8p8xt6+-VaobS_cWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 08:21:37 +0100
From: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 2:18 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> 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"?
Not really because bit spinlock leaves preemption disabled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists