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 S1752908AbdBGE52 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:57:28 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:40008 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751164AbdBGE51 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:57:27 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 165.244.249.25
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.223.161
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:57:22 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@huawei.com>
CC: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        <willy@infradead.org>, <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, <ngupta@vflare.org>,
        <Mi.Sophia.Wang@huawei.com>, <zhouxiyu@huawei.com>,
        <weidu.du@huawei.com>, <zhangshiming5@huawei.com>,
        <won.ho.park@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: extend zero pages to same element pages for zram
Message-ID: <20170207045722.GA2215@bbox>
References: <1483692145-75357-1-git-send-email-zhouxianrong@huawei.com>
 <1486111347-112972-1-git-send-email-zhouxianrong@huawei.com>
 <20170205142100.GA9611@bbox>
 <2f6e188c-5358-eeab-44ab-7634014af651@huawei.com>
 <20170206234805.GA12188@bbox>
 <ba64f168-72f5-65c3-c88c-7a59e57b20aa@huawei.com>
 <20170207025426.GA1528@bbox>
 <d8e06f0a-75b0-41cf-4ff2-c3bb1310fa24@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d8e06f0a-75b0-41cf-4ff2-c3bb1310fa24@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on LGEKRMHUB08/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November
 21, 2013) at 2017/02/07 13:57:23,
        Serialize by Router on LGEKRMHUB08/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November
 21, 2013) at 2017/02/07 13:57:23,
        Serialize complete at 2017/02/07 13:57:23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:24:40AM +0800, zhouxianrong wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017/2/7 10:54, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:20:57AM +0800, zhouxianrong wrote:
> >
> >< snip >
> >
> >>>>3. the below should be modified.
> >>>>
> >>>>static inline bool zram_meta_get(struct zram *zram)
> >>>>@@ -495,11 +553,17 @@ static void zram_meta_free(struct zram_meta *meta, u64 disksize)
> >>>>
> >>>>	/* Free all pages that are still in this zram device */
> >>>>	for (index = 0; index < num_pages; index++) {
> >>>>-		unsigned long handle = meta->table[index].handle;
> >>>>+		unsigned long handle;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+		bit_spin_lock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
> >>>>+		handle = meta->table[index].handle;
> >>>>
> >>>>-		if (!handle)
> >>>>+		if (!handle || zram_test_flag(meta, index, ZRAM_SAME)) {
> >>>>+			bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
> >>>>			continue;
> >>>>+		}
> >>>>
> >>>>+		bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
> >>>>		zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
> >>>
> >>>Could you explain why we need this modification?
> >>>
> >>>>	}
> >>>>
> >>>>@@ -511,7 +575,7 @@ static void zram_meta_free(struct zram_meta *meta, u64 disksize)
> >>>>static struct zram_meta *zram_meta_alloc(char *pool_name, u64 disksize)
> >>>>{
> >>>>	size_t num_pages;
> >>>>-	struct zram_meta *meta = kmalloc(sizeof(*meta), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>+	struct zram_meta *meta = kzalloc(sizeof(*meta), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>
> >>>Ditto
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>.
> >>>
> >>
> >>because of union of handle and element, i think a non-zero element (other than handle) is prevented from freeing.
> >>if zram_meta_get was modified, zram_meta_alloc did so.
> >
> >Right. Thanks but I don't see why we need the locking in there and modification of
> >zram_meta_alloc.
> >
> >Isn't it enough with this?
> 
> i am afraid someone do reset_store, so did lock.

reset_store is protected by zram->claim and and init_done so I don't
think so.