On (01/16/16 09:16), Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[..]
> BTW, couldn't the correct fix also just look like this?
>
> diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> index 9f15bdd9163c..43f743175ede 100644
> --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> @@ -1635,8 +1635,8 @@ 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++;
> + /* This also effectively unpins the handle */
> record_obj(handle, free_obj);
> - unpin_tag(handle);
> obj_free(pool, class, used_obj);
> }
I think this will work.
> But I'd still recommend WRITE_ONCE in record_obj(). And I'm not even sure it's
> safe on all architectures to do a simple overwrite of a word against somebody
> else trying to lock a bit there?
hm... for example, generic bitops from include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h
use _atomic_spin_lock_irqsave()
#define test_and_set_bit_lock(nr, addr) test_and_set_bit(nr, addr)
static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
unsigned long old;
unsigned long flags;
_atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(p, flags);
old = *p;
*p = old | mask;
_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(p, flags);
return (old & mask) != 0;
}
so overwriting it from the outside world (w/o taking _atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(p))
can theoretically be tricky in some cases.
-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>