On (12/24/18 12:35), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > @@ -645,10 +680,13 @@ static ssize_t writeback_store(struct device *dev, > bvec.bv_len = PAGE_SIZE; > bvec.bv_offset = 0; > > - if (zram->stop_writeback) { > + spin_lock(&zram->wb_limit_lock); > + if (zram->wb_limit_enable && !zram->bd_wb_limit) { > + spin_unlock(&zram->wb_limit_lock); > ret = -EIO; > break; > } > + spin_unlock(&zram->wb_limit_lock); [..] > @@ -732,11 +771,10 @@ static ssize_t writeback_store(struct device *dev, > zram_set_element(zram, index, blk_idx); > blk_idx = 0; > atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.pages_stored); > - if (atomic64_add_unless(&zram->stats.bd_wb_limit, > - -1 << (PAGE_SHIFT - 12), 0)) { > - if (atomic64_read(&zram->stats.bd_wb_limit) == 0) > - zram->stop_writeback = true; > - } > + spin_lock(&zram->wb_limit_lock); > + if (zram->wb_limit_enable && zram->bd_wb_limit > 0) > + zram->bd_wb_limit -= 1UL << (PAGE_SHIFT - 12); > + spin_unlock(&zram->wb_limit_lock);
Do we really need ->wb_limit_lock spinlock? We kinda punch it twice in this loop. If someone clears ->wb_limit_enable somewhere in between then the worst thing to happen is that we will just write extra page to the backing device; not a very big deal to me. Am I missing something? -ss