mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: zram: minimize `slot_free_lock' usage (v2)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:49:42 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130909124942.GA2221@swordfish.minsk.epam.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130909123329.GZ19256@mwanda>

> > 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 rw_lock.
> > 
> 
> zram->slot_free_lock protects zram->slot_free_rq but shouldn't the zram
> rw_lock be wrapped around the whole operation like the original code
> does?  I don't know the zram code, but the original looks like it makes
> sense but in this one it looks like the locks are duplicative.
> 
> Is the down_read() in the original code be changed to down_write()?
>

I'm not touching locking around existing READ/WRITE commands.

the original code:

static void handle_pending_slot_free(struct zram *zram)
{
        struct zram_slot_free *free_rq;

        spin_lock(&zram->slot_free_lock);
        while (zram->slot_free_rq) {
                free_rq = zram->slot_free_rq;
                zram->slot_free_rq = free_rq->next;
                zram_free_page(zram, free_rq->index);
                kfree(free_rq);
        }
        spin_unlock(&zram->slot_free_lock);
}

static int zram_bvec_rw(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
                        int offset, struct bio *bio, int rw)
{
        int ret;

        if (rw == READ) {
                down_read(&zram->lock);
                handle_pending_slot_free(zram);
                ret = zram_bvec_read(zram, bvec, index, offset, bio);
                up_read(&zram->lock);
        } else {
                down_write(&zram->lock);
                handle_pending_slot_free(zram);
                ret = zram_bvec_write(zram, bvec, index, offset);
                up_write(&zram->lock);
        }

        return ret;
}



the new one:

static void handle_pending_slot_free(struct zram *zram)
{
        struct zram_slot_free *free_rq;

        down_write(&zram->lock);
        spin_lock(&zram->slot_free_lock);
        while (zram->slot_free_rq) {
                free_rq = zram->slot_free_rq;
                zram->slot_free_rq = free_rq->next;
                zram_free_page(zram, free_rq->index);
                kfree(free_rq);
        }
        spin_unlock(&zram->slot_free_lock);
        up_write(&zram->lock);
}

static int zram_bvec_rw(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
                        int offset, struct bio *bio, int rw)
{
        int ret;

        if (zram->slot_free_rq)
                handle_pending_slot_free(zram);

        if (rw == READ) {
                down_read(&zram->lock);
                ret = zram_bvec_read(zram, bvec, index, offset, bio);
                up_read(&zram->lock);
        } else {
                down_write(&zram->lock);
                ret = zram_bvec_write(zram, bvec, index, offset);
                up_write(&zram->lock);
        }

        return ret;
}


both READ and WRITE operations are still protected by down_read() for READ path
and down_write() for WRITE path. however, there is no handle_pending_slot_free()
and zram->slot_free_lock locking on every READ/WRITE, instead handle_pending_slot_free()
is called only when zram->slot_free_rq is not NULL. handle_pending_slot_free() in
turn protects zram_free_page() call by down_write(), so no READ/WRITE operations
are affected.

	-ss

  reply	other threads:[~2013-09-09 12:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-09-06 15:12 Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-09 12:33 ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-09 12:49   ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2013-09-09 13:21     ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-09 13:46       ` Jerome Marchand
2013-09-09 16:10         ` Jerome Marchand
2013-09-10 14:34           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-10 14:58             ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-10 15:15               ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-09-10 23:12               ` [PATCH 1/2] staging: zram: fix handle_pending_slot_free() and zram_reset_device() race Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-12 22:12                 ` Greg KH
2013-09-13  9:17                   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-16  0:02                 ` Minchan Kim
2013-09-17 17:24                   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-23  4:24                     ` Minchan Kim
2013-09-23  8:42                       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-10 23:19               ` [PATCH 2/2] staging: zram: remove init_done from zram struct (v3) Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-10 23:27             ` [PATCH 1/2] staging: zram: minimize `slot_free_lock' usage (v2) Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-09 14:42       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2013-09-09 14:52         ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-09 15:09           ` Sergey Senozhatsky

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130909124942.GA2221@swordfish.minsk.epam.com \
    --to=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jmarchan@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome