On 07/11/2012 02:42 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 12:17 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> On 07/09/2012 09:35 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Maybe we need local_irq_save/restore in zs_[un]map_object path.
>>
>> I'd rather not disable interrupts since that will create
>> unnecessary interrupt latency for all users, even if they
>
> Agreed.
> Although we guide k[un]map atomic is so fast, it isn't necessary
> to force irq_[enable|disable]. Okay.
>
>> don't need interrupt protection. If a particular user uses
>> zs_map_object() in an interrupt path, it will be up to that
>> user to disable interrupts to ensure safety.
>
> Nope. It shouldn't do that.
> Any user in interrupt context can't assume that there isn't any other user using per-cpu buffer
> right before interrupt happens.
>
> The concern is that if such bug happens, it's very hard to find a bug.
> So, how about adding this?
>
> void zs_map_object(...)
> {
> BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
> }
I not completely following you, but I think I'm following
enough. Your point is that the per-cpu buffers are shared
by all zsmalloc users and one user doesn't know if another
user is doing a zs_map_object() in an interrupt path.
However, I think what you are suggesting is to disallow
mapping in interrupt context. This is a problem for zcache
as it already does mapping in interrupt context, namely for
page decompression in the page fault handler.
What do you think about making the per-cpu buffers local to
each zsmalloc pool? That way each user has their own per-cpu
buffers and don't step on each other's toes.
Thanks,
Seth
--
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>