Re: [PATCH 0/2] revert changes to zcache_do_preload()

[Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 08/23/2012 06:28 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Okay, then, why do you think the patchsets are culprit?
> I didn't look the cleanup patch series of Xiao at that time
> so I can be wrong but as I just look through patch of
> "zcache: optimize zcache_do_preload", I can't find any fault
> because zcache_put_page checks irq_disable so we don't need
> to disable preemption so it seems that patch is correct to me.
> If the race happens by preemption, BUG_ON in zcache_put_page
> should catch it.
> 
> What do you mean? Do you have any clue in your mind?
> 
>         The commits undermine an assumption made by tmem_put() in
>         the cleancache path that preemption is disabled.

I do not have an explanation right now for why these commits
expose this issue.  The patch looks like it should be fine
to me, hence my Ack at the time.

I understand and agree with you that the zcache shim
functions zcache_put_page(), zcache_get_page(),
zcache_flush_page(), and zcache_flush_object() all disable
interrupts (or make sure that interrupts are already
disabled) which implicitly disables preemption.

I'm still trying to find root cause here.

Seth

--
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>