On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:23:50PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello Minchan,
> On (08/08/17 17:13), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Sergey,
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:02:26PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (08/08/17 15:50), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > With on-stack-bio, rw_page interface doesn't provide a clear performance
> > > > benefit for zram and surely has a maintenance burden, so remove the
> > > > last user to remove rw_page completely.
> > >
> > > OK, never really liked it, I think we had that conversation before.
> > >
> > > as far as I remember, zram_rw_page() was the reason we had to do some
> > > tricks with init_lock to make lockdep happy. may be now we can "simplify"
> > > the things back.
> > I cannot remember. Blame my brain. ;-)
> no worries. I didn't remember it clearly as well, hence the "may be" part.
> commit 08eee69fcf6baea543a2b4d2a2fcba0e61aa3160
> Author: Minchan Kim
> zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request
> Admin could reset zram during I/O operation going on so we have used
> zram->init_lock as read-side lock in I/O path to prevent sudden zram
> meta freeing.
> However, the init_lock is really troublesome. We can't do call
> zram_meta_alloc under init_lock due to lockdep splat because
> zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and hold it as
> read_lock while other places in process context hold it as write_lock.
> So, we have used allocation out of the lock to avoid lockdep warn but
> it's not good for readability and fainally, I met another lockdep splat
> between init_lock and cpu_hotplug from kmem_cache_destroy during working
> zsmalloc compaction. :(
I don't think this patch is going to change anything with respect to the
use of init_lock. You're still going to be called in the reclaim path,
no longer through rw_page, but through the bio path instead.
Linux-nvdimm mailing list