Cc Andrew,
On (01/15/16 11:35), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > Signed-off-by: Junil Lee <junil0814.lee@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/zsmalloc.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > index e7414ce..bb459ef 100644
> > --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > @@ -1635,6 +1635,7 @@ static int migrate_zspage(struct zs_pool *pool, struct size_class *class,
> > free_obj = obj_malloc(d_page, class, handle);
> > zs_object_copy(free_obj, used_obj, class);
> > index++;
> > + free_obj |= BIT(HANDLE_PIN_BIT);
> > record_obj(handle, free_obj);
>
> I think record_obj should store free_obj to *handle with masking off least bit.
> IOW, how about this?
>
> record_obj(handle, obj)
> {
> *(unsigned long)handle = obj & ~(1<<HANDLE_PIN_BIT);
> }
[just a wild idea]
or zs_free() can take spin_lock(&class->lock) earlier, it cannot free the
object until the class is locked anyway, and migration is happening with
the locked class. extending class->lock scope in zs_free() thus should
not affect the perfomance. so it'll be either zs_free() is touching the
object or the migration, not both.
-ss
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>