Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <fae85e4440a8ef6f13192476bd33a4826416fc58.camel@gmx.de>
 <aa9be27f0d247db1b25da55901b975d78537db3d.camel@gmx.de> <CAM4kBBJYZzbXAixrKvy9MeO2eUsVVi8=iUBUc+pbSMXudy7hkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6946d6e798866276f0d635f219cdd4ad05156351.camel@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <6946d6e798866276f0d635f219cdd4ad05156351.camel@gmx.de>
From:   Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Dec 2020 11:46:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAM4kBBJZDqZfk+w5Wv4Ye7JythQ-Sr5-==zxeq8M5WCnHpFtEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] zswap: fix zswap_frontswap_load() vs zsmalloc::map/unmap()
 might_sleep() splat
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020, 11:27 Mike Galbraith, <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 11:20 +0100, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 11:12 AM Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > (mailer partially munged formatting? resend)
> > >
> > > mm/zswap: fix zswap_frontswap_load() vs zsmalloc::map/unmap() might_sleep() splat
> > >
> > > zsmalloc map/unmap methods use preemption disabling bit spinlocks.  Take the
> > > mutex outside of pool map/unmap methods in zswap_frontswap_load() as is done
> > > in zswap_frontswap_store().
> >
> > oh wait... So is zsmalloc taking a spin lock in its map callback and
> > releasing it only in unmap? In this case, I would rather keep zswap as
> > is, mark zsmalloc as RT unsafe and have zsmalloc maintainer fix it.
>
> The kernel that generated that splat was NOT an RT kernel, it was plain
> master.today with a PREEMPT config.


I see, thanks. I don't think it makes things better for zsmalloc
though. From what I can see, the offending code is this:

>        /* From now on, migration cannot move the object */
>        pin_tag(handle);

Bit spinlock is taken in pin_tag(). I find the comment above somewhat
misleading, why is it necessary to take a spinlock to prevent
migration? I would guess an atomic flag should normally be enough.

zswap is not broken here, it is zsmalloc that needs to be fixed.

Best regards,
   Vitaly