Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/zsmalloc: remove migrate_write_lock_nested()

[Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>]

On (24/02/20 12:51), Chengming Zhou wrote:
> On 2024/2/20 12:48, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (24/02/19 13:33), Chengming Zhou wrote:
> >>  static void migrate_write_unlock(struct zspage *zspage)
> >>  {
> >>  	write_unlock(&zspage->lock);
> >> @@ -2003,19 +1997,17 @@ static unsigned long __zs_compact(struct zs_pool *pool,
> >>  			dst_zspage = isolate_dst_zspage(class);
> >>  			if (!dst_zspage)
> >>  				break;
> >> -			migrate_write_lock(dst_zspage);
> >>  		}
> >>  
> >>  		src_zspage = isolate_src_zspage(class);
> >>  		if (!src_zspage)
> >>  			break;
> >>  
> >> -		migrate_write_lock_nested(src_zspage);
> >> -
> >> +		migrate_write_lock(src_zspage);
> >>  		migrate_zspage(pool, src_zspage, dst_zspage);
> >> -		fg = putback_zspage(class, src_zspage);
> >>  		migrate_write_unlock(src_zspage);
> >>  
> >> +		fg = putback_zspage(class, src_zspage);
> > 
> > Hmm. Lockless putback doesn't look right to me. We modify critical
> > zspage fileds in putback_zspage().
> 
> Which I think is protected by pool->lock, right? We already held it.

Not really. We have, for example, the following patterns:

	get_zspage_mapping()
	spin_lock(&pool->lock)