Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2023 11:57:11 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Andrew Yang <andrew.yang@mediatek.com>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        wsd_upstream@mediatek.com, casper.li@mediatek.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: Fix races between modifications of fullness
 and isolated
Message-ID: <20230726025711.GI955071@google.com>
References: <20230721063705.11455-1-andrew.yang@mediatek.com>
 <20230726023122.GH955071@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230726023122.GH955071@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On (23/07/26 11:31), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (23/07/21 14:37), Andrew Yang wrote:
> > 
> > Since fullness and isolated share the same unsigned int,
> > modifications of them should be protected by the same lock.
> 
> Sorry, I don't think I follow. Can you please elaborate?
> What is fullness in this context?

Oh, my bad, so that's zspage's fullness:FULLNESS_BITS and
isolated:ISOLATED_BITS.  I somehow thought about something
very different (page isolated, not zspage isolated).