On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 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.
So when we are inside a spinlocked section, why is this_cpu_ptr() not
working? That does not make sense.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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
