Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock

[Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>]

On (01/28/15 11:57), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > second,
> > after kick_all_cpus_sync() new RW operations will see false init_done().
> > bdev->bd_holders protects from resetting device which has read/write
> > operation ongoing on the onther CPU.
> > 
> > I need to refresh on how ->bd_holders actually incremented/decremented.
> > can the following race condition take a place?
> > 
> > 	CPU0					CPU1
> > reset_store()
> > bdev->bd_holders == false
> > 					zram_make_request
> > 						-rm- down_read(&zram->init_lock);
> > 					init_done(zram) == true
> > zram_reset_device()			valid_io_request()
> > 					__zram_make_request
> > down_write(&zram->init_lock);		zram_bvec_rw
> > [..]
> > set_capacity(zram->disk, 0);
> > zram->init_done = false;
> > kick_all_cpus_sync();			zram_bvec_write or zram_bvec_read()
> > zram_meta_free(zram->meta);		
> > zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);		zcomp_compress() or zcomp_decompress()
> 
> You're absolutely right. I forgot rw path is blockable so
> kick_all_cpus_sync doesn't work for our case, unfortunately.
> So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?

yes, I think we need to take a second look on srcu approach.

	-ss

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>