> From: Dan Magenheimer > Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/4] zsmalloc: add details to zs_map_object boiler plate > > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] zsmalloc: add details to zs_map_object boiler plate > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:15:43AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: > > > 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. > > > > And vise versa is yes. > > > > > 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. > > > > I don't get it. > > Page fault handler isn't interrupt context. > > > > > 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. > > > > Maybe, It could be a solution if you really need it in interrupt context. > > But the concern is it could hurt zsmalloc's goal which is memory > > space efficiency if your system has lots of CPUs. > > Sorry to be so far behind on this thread. > > For frontswap and zram, the "put" calls are not in interrupt > context. For cleancache, the put call IS in interrupt context. > So if you want to use zsmalloc for zcache+cleancache, interrupt > context is a concern. As discussed previously in a separate > thread though, zsmalloc will take a lot of work to support the full > needs of zcache. So, pick your poison. Oops, correction. Cleancache puts are not in interrupt context but do have interrupts disabled. That's quite different of course. So Minchan's BUG_ON(in_interrupt()) should be fine for now. -- 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