From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751724AbdIAHr7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 1 Sep 2017 03:47:59 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:35978 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751022AbdIAHr6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 1 Sep 2017 03:47:58 -0400
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:47:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch-rt] drivers/zram: fix zcomp_stream_get() smp_processor_id()
 use in preemptible code
In-Reply-To: <20170901074023.2ctuzw3ohlnlmtid@linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709010947090.1857@nanos>
References: <20170818120939.b2rj2whb2hgfzjpm@linutronix.de> <1503482249.4970.7.camel@gmx.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708312103530.2346@nanos> <20170831192637.ffzw2km3zfiafx7s@linutronix.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708312130260.2346@nanos>
 <20170901074023.2ctuzw3ohlnlmtid@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> On 2017-08-31 21:32:30 [+0200], Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > zram_lock_table() is bit_spin_lock() on !RT and spin_lock(&table->lock);
> > > on RT. So this is done.
> > > !RT has this running in a kmap_atomic() section so they have no
> > > preemption there.
> > > zcomp_stream_get() returns a per-CPU object which is protected with a
> > > spinlock and only accessed locked.
> > 
> > So when we are inside a spinlocked section, why is this_cpu_ptr() not
> > working? That does not make sense.
> 
> zram_decompress_page() invokes zcomp_stream_get() within a spin_lock
> section (zram_lock_table()). This is fine.
> zram_bvec_write() does not invoke zcomp_stream_get() within a spin_lock
> section.

Fair enough.