Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752105AbdHHIXi (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 04:23:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]:35905 "EHLO mail-pg0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750818AbdHHIXg (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 04:23:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:23:50 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Minchan Kim Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ross Zwisler , "karam . lee" , seungho1.park@lge.com, Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig , Dan Williams , Dave Chinner , jack@suse.cz, Jens Axboe , Vishal Verma , linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, kernel-team , Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] zram: remove zram_rw_page Message-ID: <20170808082350.GD7765@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> References: <1502175024-28338-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> <1502175024-28338-6-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> <20170808070226.GC7765@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> <20170808081338.GA30908@bbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170808081338.GA30908@bbox> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2311 Lines: 55 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. :( Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in rw path. This patch removes it in rw path and instead, add atomic refcount for meta lifetime management and completion to free meta in process context. It's important to free meta in process context because some of resource destruction needs mutex lock, which could be held if we releases the resource in reclaim context so it's deadlock, again. As a bonus, we could remove init_done check in rw path because zram_meta_get will do a role for it, instead. > Anyway, it's always welcome to make thing simple. > Could you send a patch after settle down this patchset? well, if it will improve anything after all :) -ss