On (25/02/27 14:12), Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > I see. I thought that they key was "shared" between zram meta table > > > entries because the key is per-zram device, which sort of made sense > > > (we can have different zram devices in a system - one swap, a bunch > > > mounted with various file-systems on them). > > Yes. So usually you do spin_lock_init() and this creates a key at _this_ > very position. So every lock initialized at this position shares the > same class/ the same pattern. > > > So the lock class is registered dynamically for each zram device > > > > zram_add() > > lockdep_register_key(&zram->lock_class); > > > > and then we use that zram->lock_class to init zram->table entries. > > > > We unregister the lock_class during each zram device destruction > > > > zram_remove() > > lockdep_unregister_key(&zram->lock_class); > > > > Does this still put zram->table entries into different lock classes? > > You shouldn't need to register and unregister the lock_class. What you > do should match for instance j_trans_commit_map in fs/jbd2/journal.c or > __key in include/linux/rhashtable.h & lib/rhashtable.c. I see, thank you. Let me try static keys then (in zram and in zsmalloc). Will need a day or two to re-run the tests, and then will send out an updated series.
