Hi Nitin, On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/18/2010 01:23 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> Nitin Gupta wrote: >>> @@ -528,17 +581,32 @@ static int zcache_store_page(struct zcache_inode_rb *znode, >>> goto out; >>> } >>> >>> - dest_data = kmap_atomic(zpage, KM_USER0); >>> + local_irq_save(flags); >> >> Does xv_malloc() required interrupts to be disabled? If so, why doesn't the function do it by itself? >> > > > xvmalloc itself doesn't require disabling interrupts but zcache needs that since > otherwise, we can have deadlock between xvmalloc pool lock and mapping->tree_lock > which zcache_put_page() is called. OTOH, zram does not require this disabling of > interrupts. So, interrupts are disable separately for zcache case. cleancache_put_page always is called with spin_lock_irq. Couldn't we replace spin_lock_irq_save with spin_lock? -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href