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;
Message-ID: <a8e616b333a85606c0da24465c9d7209b6991eba.camel@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] zswap: fix zswap_frontswap_load() vs
 zsmalloc::map/unmap() might_sleep() splat
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
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>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        NitinGupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
Date:   Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:03:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <18669bd607ae9efbf4e00e36532c7aa167d0fa12.camel@gmx.de>
References: <fae85e4440a8ef6f13192476bd33a4826416fc58.camel@gmx.de>
         <aa9be27f0d247db1b25da55901b975d78537db3d.camel@gmx.de>
         <CAM4kBBJYZzbXAixrKvy9MeO2eUsVVi8=iUBUc+pbSMXudy7hkw@mail.gmail.com>
         <6946d6e798866276f0d635f219cdd4ad05156351.camel@gmx.de>
         <CAM4kBBJZDqZfk+w5Wv4Ye7JythQ-Sr5-==zxeq8M5WCnHpFtEA@mail.gmail.com>
         <18669bd607ae9efbf4e00e36532c7aa167d0fa12.camel@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

(CC zsmalloc maintainers)

On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 11:59 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 11:46 +0100, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Dec 2020, 11:27 Mike Galbraith, <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > The kernel that generated that splat was NOT an RT kernel, it was pl=
ain
> > > 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.
>
> Cool, those damn bit spinlocks going away would be a case of happiness
> for RT as well :)
>
> 	-Mike