From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754794AbcARLHp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 06:07:45 -0500
Received: from mail-pa0-f67.google.com ([209.85.220.67]:33133 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754729AbcARLHl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 06:07:41 -0500
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:08:52 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Junil Lee <junil0814.lee@lge.com>, ngupta@vflare.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zsmalloc: fix migrate_zspage-zs_free race condition
Message-ID: <20160118110852.GB30668@swordfish>
References: <1453095596-44055-1-git-send-email-junil0814.lee@lge.com>
 <20160118063611.GC7453@bbox>
 <20160118065434.GB459@swordfish>
 <20160118071157.GD7453@bbox>
 <20160118073939.GA30668@swordfish>
 <569C9A1F.2020303@suse.cz>
 <20160118082000.GA20244@bbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160118082000.GA20244@bbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (01/18/16 17:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > > oh... good find! lost release semantic of unpin_tag()...
> > 
> > Ah, release semantic, good point indeed. OK then we need the v2 approach again,
> > with WRITE_ONCE() in record_obj(). Or some kind of record_obj_release() with
> > release semantic, which would be a bit more effective, but I guess migration is
> > not that critical path to be worth introducing it.
> 
> WRITE_ONCE in record_obj would add more memory operations in obj_malloc
> but I don't feel it's too heavy in this phase so,
> 
> How about this? Junil, Could you resend patch if others agree this?
> Thanks.
> 
> +/*
> + * record_obj updates handle's value to free_obj and it shouldn't
> + * invalidate lock bit(ie, HANDLE_PIN_BIT) of handle, otherwise
> + * it breaks synchronization using pin_tag(e,g, zs_free) so let's
> + * keep the lock bit.
> + */
>  static void record_obj(unsigned long handle, unsigned long obj)
>  {
> -	*(unsigned long *)handle = obj;
> +	int locked = (*(unsigned long *)handle) & (1<<HANDLE_PIN_BIT);
> +	unsigned long val = obj | locked;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * WRITE_ONCE could prevent store tearing like below
> +	 * *(unsigned long *)handle = free_obj
> +	 * *(unsigned long *)handle |= locked;
> +	 */
> +	WRITE_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)handle, val);
>  }

given that memory barriers are also compiler barriers, wouldn't

	record_obj()
	{
		barrier
		*(unsigned long *)handle) = new
	}

suffice?

	-ss