Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85257-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:24:06 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, yosryahmed@google.com,
	nphamcs@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable hotfix] mm/zswap: fix zswap_pools_lock usages
 after changing to percpu_ref
Message-ID: <Zd9QFkE2nr5FyYDq@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240210-zswap-global-lru-v3-2-200495333595@bytedance.com>
 <20240228151832.2431993-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240228151832.2431993-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 03:18:32PM +0000, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> Now the release of zswap pool is controlled by percpu_ref, its release
> callback (__zswap_pool_empty()) will be called when percpu_ref hit 0.
> But this release callback may potentially be called from RCU callback
> context by percpu_ref_kill(), which maybe in the interrupt context.
> 
> So we need to use spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore()
> in the release callback: __zswap_pool_empty(). In other task context
> places, spin_lock_irq() and spin_unlock_irq() are enough to avoid
> potential deadlock.

RCU callback context is BH, not IRQ, so it's enough to use
spin_lock_bh(), no?