Hi Alexey, > 10 mars 2017 kl. 22:54 skrev Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> 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? Looks so, thanks for the pointer. I'm currently commuting but will check it thoroughly tomorrow for sure. ~vitaly >> >> 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