On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:08:05AM +0800, Zhongkun He wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:46 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 08:54:04PM +0800, Zhongkun He wrote: > > > There is no need to use spinlock in this section, so > > > remove it. > > > > I don't know this code at all, but the idiom is (relatively) common. > > It waits until anybody _currently_ holding the lock has released it. > > > > That would, eg, make it safe to free the 'pool' memory. > > > > > - spin_lock(&pool->lock); > > > - spin_unlock(&pool->lock); > > > > no, please see the commit 'e774a7bc7f0adb'. > > spin_lock(&pool->lock); > - if (!list_empty(&page->lru)) > - list_del_init(&page->lru); > spin_unlock(&pool->lock); > > The original purpose of this lock was to protect page->lru, > which was removed now, so the spinlock is unnecessary. But pool->lock protects other stuff too? This doesn't rule out that there is some other ordering dependency on cycling the lock before freeing the entry. The person who would know best is the maintainer of this code, Vitaly. Let's CC him.
