From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A672DC2B9F4 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:07:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6F6611BF for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:07:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3A6F6611BF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 28C5E6B005D; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 215B46B006E; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:07:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0904C6B0070; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:07:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0079.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.79]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF046B005D for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from forelay.prod.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by fograve02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32441F045 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006D918027994 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:49:44 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78281492730.24.EED846A Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC68BE00099D for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4G8SNs3cPxzZh5K; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 21:46:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.120] (10.174.177.120) by dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 21:49:37 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm/z3fold: use release_z3fold_page_locked() to release locked z3fold page To: Hillf Danton CC: , , , , Mikhail Gavrilov References: <20210619093151.1492174-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <20210620002604.1575-1-hdanton@sina.com> From: Miaohe Lin Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 21:49:36 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210620002604.1575-1-hdanton@sina.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.120] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Authentication-Results: imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of linmiaohe@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.187 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linmiaohe@huawei.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Stat-Signature: weyrrsd51juj1ynjdh3bj5hmtt1px563 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: EC68BE00099D X-HE-Tag: 1624369782-927547 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.001770, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2021/6/20 8:26, Hillf Danton wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 17:31:51 +0800 Miaohe Lin wrote: >> We should use release_z3fold_page_locked() to release z3fold page when it's >> locked, although it looks harmless to use release_z3fold_page() now. >> >> Fixes: dcf5aedb24f8 ("z3fold: stricter locking and more careful reclaim") >> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin >> --- >> mm/z3fold.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/z3fold.c b/mm/z3fold.c >> index 196d886a3436..b3c0577b8095 100644 >> --- a/mm/z3fold.c >> +++ b/mm/z3fold.c >> @@ -1372,7 +1372,7 @@ static int z3fold_reclaim_page(struct z3fold_pool *pool, unsigned int retries) >> if (zhdr->foreign_handles || >> test_and_set_bit(PAGE_CLAIMED, &page->private)) { >> if (kref_put(&zhdr->refcount, >> - release_z3fold_page)) >> + release_z3fold_page_locked)) >> atomic64_dec(&pool->pages_nr); > > LGTM. JFYI other issue in z3fold was reported [1] and if the fix proposed there > makes any sense to you feel free to pick it up and ask Mike for his tests. > Thank you for review and reply. I browsed [1] several times but I failed to figure out what's the root cause. And I found some bugs and possible race windows from previous code inspection. I think we can try fix these first and see whether [1] is (hopefully) fixed. :) Thanks again. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210316061351.1649-1-hdanton@sina.com/ > . >