On 11.03.2017 00:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:22:12AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> z3fold_reclaim_page() contains the only return that may
>> leave the function with pool->lock spinlock held.
>>
>> 669 spin_lock(&pool->lock);
>> 670 if (kref_put(&zhdr->refcount, release_z3fold_page)) {
>> 671 atomic64_dec(&pool->pages_nr);
>> 672 return 0;
>> 673 }
>>
>> May be we need spin_unlock(&pool->lock); just before return?
>
> I would tend to agree. sparse warns about this, and also about two
> other locking problems ... which I'm not sure are really problems so
> much as missing annotations?
>
> mm/z3fold.c:467:35: warning: context imbalance in 'z3fold_alloc' - unexpected unlock
> mm/z3fold.c:519:26: warning: context imbalance in 'z3fold_free' - different lock contexts for basic block
> mm/z3fold.c:581:12: warning: context imbalance in 'z3fold_reclaim_page' - different lock contexts for basic block
>
I also do not see problems in z3fold_alloc() and z3fold_free().
But I am unaware of sparse annotations that can help here.
--
Alexey
--
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>
