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
next prev parent 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