On (09/10/13 17:34), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> >
> > Now I think we can drop the call to handle_pending_slot_free() in
> > zram_bvec_rw() altogether. As long as the write lock is held when
> > handle_pending_slot_free() is called, there is no race. It's no different
> > from any write
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:58:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Btw, the de...@driverdev.osuosl.org list seems to be down again. I
> still have not recieved the v3 patch. Use the
> driverdev-de...@linuxdriverproject.org email list instead.
They are the same "list", just different DNS entries.
Btw, the de...@driverdev.osuosl.org list seems to be down again. I
still have not recieved the v3 patch. Use the
driverdev-de...@linuxdriverproject.org email list instead.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
On (09/09/13 18:10), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 03:46 PM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > On 09/09/2013 03:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
> > cause
On (09/09/13 18:10), Jerome Marchand wrote:
On 09/09/2013 03:46 PM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
On 09/09/2013 03:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary
Btw, the de...@driverdev.osuosl.org list seems to be down again. I
still have not recieved the v3 patch. Use the
driverdev-de...@linuxdriverproject.org email list instead.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:58:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Btw, the de...@driverdev.osuosl.org list seems to be down again. I
still have not recieved the v3 patch. Use the
driverdev-de...@linuxdriverproject.org email list instead.
They are the same list, just different DNS entries. I'll
On (09/10/13 17:34), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
Now I think we can drop the call to handle_pending_slot_free() in
zram_bvec_rw() altogether. As long as the write lock is held when
handle_pending_slot_free() is called, there is no race. It's no different
from any write request and
On 09/09/2013 03:46 PM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 03:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
> cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most
On (09/09/13 17:52), Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:42:59PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > 3) Explain why it is safe to test zram->slot_free_rq when we are not
> > >holding the lock. I think it is unsafe. I don't want to even think
> > >about it without the
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:42:59PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > 3) Explain why it is safe to test zram->slot_free_rq when we are not
> >holding the lock. I think it is unsafe. I don't want to even think
> >about it without the numbers.
>
> atomic pointer test, which is either
On (09/09/13 16:21), Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
> > > > cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
> > > > process will see NULL slot_free_rq.
On 09/09/2013 03:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
> > > cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
> > > process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
> > > only when current
> > Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
> > cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
> > process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
> > only when current detects that slot_free_rq is not NULL.
> >
> > v2: protect
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 06:12:55PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
> cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
> process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
> only when current detects that
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 06:12:55PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
only when current detects that
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
only when current detects that slot_free_rq is not NULL.
v2: protect handle_pending_slot_free()
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
only when current detects that
On 09/09/2013 03:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq.
On (09/09/13 16:21), Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:42:59PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
3) Explain why it is safe to test zram-slot_free_rq when we are not
holding the lock. I think it is unsafe. I don't want to even think
about it without the numbers.
atomic pointer test, which is either NULL or
On (09/09/13 17:52), Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:42:59PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
3) Explain why it is safe to test zram-slot_free_rq when we are not
holding the lock. I think it is unsafe. I don't want to even think
about it without the numbers.
On 09/09/2013 03:46 PM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
On 09/09/2013 03:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:49:42PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
only when current detects that slot_free_rq is not NULL.
v2: protect handle_pending_slot_free() with zram
Calling handle_pending_slot_free() for every RW operation may
cause unneccessary slot_free_lock locking, because most likely
process will see NULL slot_free_rq. handle_pending_slot_free()
only when current detects that slot_free_rq is not NULL.
v2: protect handle_pending_slot_free() with zram
26 matches
Mail list logo
