On 2017-08-31 21:11:08 [+0200], Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> >
> > Use get_local_ptr() vs this_cpu_ptr().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c
> > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ struct zcomp_strm *zcomp_stream_get(stru
> > {
> > struct zcomp_strm *zstrm;
> >
> > - zstrm = *this_cpu_ptr(comp->stream);
> > + zstrm = *get_local_ptr(comp->stream);
>
> This looks wrong. On mainline the calling code must have preemption disable
> somehow, otherwise this_cpu_ptr() would not work.
This was introduced by Mike in a previous patch. The zstrm is only
accessed while the spinlock is held.
> Looking at the call site it is;
>
> zram_slot_lock()
> bit_spin_lock()
>
> which is of course evading lockdep and everything else debugging wise.
>
> Sebastian, do we have migration protection in bitlocked regions? And we
> shpuld look into converting that into a spinlock on rt.
zram_lock_table() is bit_spin_lock() on !RT and spin_lock(&table->lock);
on RT. So this is done.
!RT has this running in a kmap_atomic() section so they have no
preemption there.
zcomp_stream_get() returns a per-CPU object which is protected with a
spinlock and only accessed locked.
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
