Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
From: Minchan Kim
Date: Tue Jan 27 2015 - 21:57:19 EST
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:07:59AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/28/15 09:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:15:27AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hello Sergey,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > Hello Sergey,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > > On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
> > > > > > > > > > > >> under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
> > > > > > > > > > > >> in reset is setting NULL into zram->meta (ie, init_done).
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This patch does it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ---
> > > > > > > > > > > >> drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > > > > > >> index 9250b3f54a8f..0299d82275e7 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > >> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > > > > > >> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > > > > > >> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> {
> > > > > > > > > > > >> size_t index;
> > > > > > > > > > > >> struct zram_meta *meta;
> > > > > > > > > > > >> + struct zcomp *comp;
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> @@ -719,20 +720,10 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> }
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> meta = zram->meta;
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - /* Free all pages that are still in this zram device */
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - for (index = 0; index < zram->disksize >> PAGE_SHIFT; index++) {
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - unsigned long handle = meta->table[index].handle;
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - if (!handle)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - continue;
> > > > > > > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - }
> > > > > > > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > > > > > > >> - zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure about moving zcomp destruction. if we would have detached it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from zram, then yes. otherwise, think of zram ->destoy vs ->init race.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > suppose,
> > > > > > > > > > > > CPU1 waits for down_write() init lock in disksize_store() with new comp already allocated;
> > > > > > > > > > > > CPU0 detaches ->meta and releases write init lock;
> > > > > > > > > > > > CPU1 grabs the lock and does zram->comp = comp;
> > > > > > > > > > > > CPU0 reaches the point of zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't see your point: this patch does not call
> > > > > > > > > > > zcomp_destroy(zram->comp) anymore, but zram_destroy(comp), where comp is
> > > > > > > > > > > the old zram->comp.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > oh... yes. sorry! my bad.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > anyway, on a second thought, do we even want to destoy meta out of init_lock?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I mean, it will let you init new device quicker. but... assume, you have
> > > > > > > > > > 30G zram (or any other bad-enough number). on CPU0 you reset device -- iterate
> > > > > > > > > > over 30G meta->table, etc. out of init_lock.
> > > > > > > > > > on CPU1 you concurrently re-init device and request again 30G.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > how bad that can be?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diskstore called on already initialised device is also not so perfect.
> > > > > > > > > > we first will try to allocate ->meta (vmalloc pages for another 30G),
> > > > > > > > > > then allocate comp, then down_write() init lock to find out that device
> > > > > > > > > > is initialised and we need to release allocated memory.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > may be we better keep ->meta destruction under init_lock and additionally
> > > > > > > > > > move ->meta and ->comp allocation under init_lock in disksize_store()?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > like the following one:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
> > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > > > > index 9250b3f..827ab21 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -765,9 +765,18 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > disksize = PAGE_ALIGN(disksize);
> > > > > > > > > > + down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > > > > > + if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > > > > > > > > + up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > > > > > + pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> > > > > > > > > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > meta = zram_meta_alloc(zram->disk->first_minor, disksize);
> > > > > > > > > > - if (!meta)
> > > > > > > > > > - return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > > > + if (!meta) {
> > > > > > > > > > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > comp = zcomp_create(zram->compressor, zram->max_comp_streams);
> > > > > > > > > > if (IS_ERR(comp)) {
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -777,13 +786,6 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > > goto out_free_meta;
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > > > > > > > > - pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> > > > > > > > > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > > > > - goto out_destroy_comp;
> > > > > > > > > > - }
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > zram->meta = meta;
> > > > > > > > > > zram->comp = comp;
> > > > > > > > > > zram->disksize = disksize;
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -799,11 +801,10 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > return len;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -out_destroy_comp:
> > > > > > > > > > - up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > > > > > - zcomp_destroy(comp);
> > > > > > > > > > out_free_meta:
> > > > > > > > > > zram_meta_free(meta);
> > > > > > > > > > +out_unlock:
> > > > > > > > > > + up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > > > > > return err;
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The init_lock is really troublesome. We can't do call zram_meta_alloc
> > > > > > > > > under init_lock due to lockdep report. Please keep in mind.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ah... I do recall it, thanks for your reminder.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and hold it
> > > > > > > > > as read_lock while here holds it as write_lock.
> > > > > > > > > It's a false positive so that we might could make shut lockdep up
> > > > > > > > > by annotation but I don't want it but want to work with lockdep rather
> > > > > > > > > than disable. As well, there are other pathes to use init_lock to
> > > > > > > > > protect other data where would be victims of lockdep.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't tell the motivation of this patch because it made you busy
> > > > > > > > > guys wasted. Let me tell it now. It was another lockdep report by
> > > > > > > > > kmem_cache_destroy for zsmalloc compaction about init_lock. That's why
> > > > > > > > > the patchset was one of the patch in compaction.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in this phase and
> > > > > > > > > make code more simple and clear but I don't want to stuck zsmalloc
> > > > > > > > > compaction by the work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having said that, I feel it's time to revisit
> > > > > > > > > to remove init_lock.
> > > > > > > > > At least, I will think over to find a solution to kill init_lock.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hm, can't think of anything quick...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -ss
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's based on Ganesh's patch.
> > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/24/50
> > > > > > (I see no similarities with Ganesh's patch)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hm, you probably meant this one https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/23/406
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > at glance this makes things a bit more complicated, so I need to think more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From afda9fd2f6c40dd0745d8a6babe78c5cbdceddf5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > > From: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:34:10 +0900
> > > > > > > Subject: [RFC] zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Admin could reset zram during I/O operation going on so we have
> > > > > > > used zram->init_lock as read-side lock in I/O path to prevent
> > > > > > > sudden zram meta freeing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, the init_lock is really troublesome.
> > > > > > > We can't do call zram_meta_alloc under init_lock due to lockdep splat
> > > > > > > because zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and
> > > > > > > hold it as read_lock while other places in process context hold it
> > > > > > > as write_lock. So, we have used allocation out of the lock to avoid
> > > > > > > lockdep warn but it's not good for readability and fainally, I met
> > > > > > > another lockdep splat between init_lock and cpu_hotpulug from
> > > > > > > kmem_cache_destroy during wokring zsmalloc compaction. :(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in rw path.
> > > > > > > This patch removes it in rw path and instead, put init_done bool
> > > > > > > variable to check initialization done with smp_[wmb|rmb] and
> > > > > > > srcu_[un]read_lock to prevent sudden zram meta freeing
> > > > > > > during I/O operation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h | 5 +++
> > > > > > > 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > index a598ada817f0..e06ff975f997 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> > > > > > > #include <linux/string.h>
> > > > > > > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> > > > > > > #include <linux/err.h>
> > > > > > > +#include <linux/srcu.h>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #include "zram_drv.h"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @@ -53,9 +54,16 @@ static ssize_t name##_show(struct device *d, \
> > > > > > > } \
> > > > > > > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -static inline int init_done(struct zram *zram)
> > > > > > > +static inline bool init_done(struct zram *zram)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > - return zram->meta != NULL;
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * init_done can be used without holding zram->init_lock in
> > > > > > > + * read/write handler(ie, zram_make_request) but we should make sure
> > > > > > > + * that zram->init_done should set up after meta initialization is
> > > > > > > + * done. Look at disksize_store.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + smp_rmb();
> > > > > > > + return zram->init_done;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ->init_done returns back :)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > can we rely on write ->meta; wmb; --- rmb; read ->meta?
> > > > >
> > > > > Might be possible.
> > >
> > > Now that I think about it, it's impossible with zram->meta because
> > > we need to nullify it before call_srcu but pre-existing SRCU read-side
> > > critical sections can access zram->meta.
> > > Anyway, introducing a new variable should be not a party-pooper.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > how much performance do we lose on barriers?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's not too much than locking which does more than(ie,
> > > > > barrier, fairness, spin on owner and so on) such simple barrier.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static inline struct zram *dev_to_zram(struct device *dev)
> > > > > > > @@ -326,6 +334,10 @@ static void zram_meta_free(struct zram_meta *meta)
> > > > > > > kfree(meta);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +static void rcu_zram_do_nothing(struct rcu_head *unused)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > static struct zram_meta *zram_meta_alloc(int device_id, u64 disksize)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > char pool_name[8];
> > > > > > > @@ -726,11 +738,8 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> > > > > > > zram->max_comp_streams = 1;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - zram_meta_free(zram->meta);
> > > > > > > - zram->meta = NULL;
> > > > > > > /* Reset stats */
> > > > > > > memset(&zram->stats, 0, sizeof(zram->stats));
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @@ -738,8 +747,12 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > > > > > > if (reset_capacity)
> > > > > > > set_capacity(zram->disk, 0);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + zram->init_done = false;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > missing wmb?
> > > > >
> > > > > I thouht about it but when I read comment from call_srcu as follows
> > > > > "each cpu is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier",
> > > > > I decided we don't need it. Right? (ie, double check)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > hm, need to think about it.
> > >
> > > Another idea is to use kick_all_cpus_sync, not srcu.
> > > With that, we don't need to add more instruction in rw path.
> > > I will try it.
> >
> > From 560478040d2e08c61796e67d0c3ee519ae67ac0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:34:10 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH] zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request
> >
> > Admin could reset zram during I/O operation going on so we have
> > used zram->init_lock as read-side lock in I/O path to prevent
> > sudden zram meta freeing.
> >
> > However, the init_lock is really troublesome.
> > We can't do call zram_meta_alloc under init_lock due to lockdep splat
> > because zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and
> > hold it as read_lock while other places in process context hold it
> > as write_lock. So, we have used allocation out of the lock to avoid
> > lockdep warn but it's not good for readability and finally, I met
> > another lockdep splat between init_lock and cpu_hotpulug from
> > kmem_cache_destroy during wokring zsmalloc compaction. :(
> >
> > Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in rw path.
> > This patch removes it in rw path and instead, use kick_all_cpus_sync
> > and a bool init_done variable to check initialization done with
> > smp_[wmb|rmb].
> >
> > Upon kick_all_cpus_sync returns, any CPU cannot access zram meta
> > any more due to init_done in zram_make_request so it's safe to
> > free meta. So, finally, we avoids init_lock in reclaim context
> > so we are free for deadlock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I like it better.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > index a598ada817f0..404602b1932e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > @@ -53,9 +53,16 @@ static ssize_t name##_show(struct device *d, \
> > } \
> > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name);
> >
> > -static inline int init_done(struct zram *zram)
> > +static inline bool init_done(struct zram *zram)
> > {
> > - return zram->meta != NULL;
> > + /*
> > + * init_done can be used without holding zram->init_lock in
> > + * read/write handler(ie, zram_make_request) but we should make sure
> > + * that zram->init_done should set up after meta initialization is
> > + * done. Look at disksize_store.
> > + */
> > + smp_rmb();
> > + return zram->init_done;
> > }
> >
>
> so now we can
> smp_rmb();
> return zram->meta != NULL;
>
> right?
>
> > static inline struct zram *dev_to_zram(struct device *dev)
> > @@ -726,11 +733,8 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> > zram->max_comp_streams = 1;
> >
> > - zram_meta_free(zram->meta);
> > - zram->meta = NULL;
> > /* Reset stats */
> > memset(&zram->stats, 0, sizeof(zram->stats));
> >
> > @@ -738,8 +742,16 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > if (reset_capacity)
> > set_capacity(zram->disk, 0);
> >
> > + zram->init_done = false;
> > + /* don't need smp_wmb because kick_all_cpus_sync does */
> > + kick_all_cpus_sync();
>
> first, how about
> meta = zram->meta;
> zram->meta = NULL;
> kick_all_cpus_sync();
>
> zram_meta_free(meta);
> zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> ..
>
>
> second,
> after kick_all_cpus_sync() new RW operations will see false init_done().
> bdev->bd_holders protects from resetting device which has read/write
> operation ongoing on the onther CPU.
>
> I need to refresh on how ->bd_holders actually incremented/decremented.
> can the following race condition take a place?
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> reset_store()
> bdev->bd_holders == false
> zram_make_request
> -rm- down_read(&zram->init_lock);
> init_done(zram) == true
> zram_reset_device() valid_io_request()
> __zram_make_request
> down_write(&zram->init_lock); zram_bvec_rw
> [..]
> set_capacity(zram->disk, 0);
> zram->init_done = false;
> kick_all_cpus_sync(); zram_bvec_write or zram_bvec_read()
> zram_meta_free(zram->meta);
> zcomp_destroy(zram->comp); zcomp_compress() or zcomp_decompress()
You're absolutely right. I forgot rw path is blockable so
kick_all_cpus_sync doesn't work for our case, unfortunately.
So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
>
> > + /*
> > + * From now on, any read/write cannot access zram meta data
> > + * by init_done in the handler.
> > + */
> > + zram_meta_free(zram->meta);
> > + zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> > up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > -
> > /*
> > * Revalidate disk out of the init_lock to avoid lockdep splat.
> > * It's okay because disk's capacity is protected by init_lock
> > @@ -762,10 +774,19 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> > if (!disksize)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > + if (init_done(zram)) {
> > + pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> > + up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > +
> > disksize = PAGE_ALIGN(disksize);
> > meta = zram_meta_alloc(zram->disk->first_minor, disksize);
> > - if (!meta)
> > + if (!meta) {
> > + up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> >
> > comp = zcomp_create(zram->compressor, zram->max_comp_streams);
> > if (IS_ERR(comp)) {
> > @@ -775,17 +796,17 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> > goto out_free_meta;
> > }
> >
> > - down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > - pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> > - err = -EBUSY;
> > - goto out_destroy_comp;
> > - }
> > -
> > zram->meta = meta;
> > zram->comp = comp;
> > zram->disksize = disksize;
> > set_capacity(zram->disk, zram->disksize >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
> > + /*
> > + * Store operation of struct zram fields should complete
> > + * before init_done set up because zram_bvec_rw doesn't
> > + * hold an zram->init_lock.
> > + */
> > + smp_wmb();
> > + zram->init_done = true;
>
> zram->meta = meta;
> smp_wmb();
>
> ?
>
> > up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -797,10 +818,8 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> >
> > return len;
> >
> > -out_destroy_comp:
> > - up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > - zcomp_destroy(comp);
> > out_free_meta:
> > + up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > zram_meta_free(meta);
> > return err;
> > }
> > @@ -907,7 +926,6 @@ static void zram_make_request(struct request_queue *queue, struct bio *bio)
> > {
> > struct zram *zram = queue->queuedata;
> >
> > - down_read(&zram->init_lock);
> > if (unlikely(!init_done(zram)))
> > goto error;
> >
> > @@ -918,12 +936,10 @@ static void zram_make_request(struct request_queue *queue, struct bio *bio)
> > }
> >
> > __zram_make_request(zram, bio);
> > - up_read(&zram->init_lock);
> >
> > return;
> >
> > error:
> > - up_read(&zram->init_lock);
> > bio_io_error(bio);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -951,17 +967,16 @@ static int zram_rw_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> > struct bio_vec bv;
> >
> > zram = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> > +
> > + /* This should be another patch */
>
> why? do you want to have this comment in the code?
It's one I should separate as another patch but I didn't in this RFC.
Just want to say that.
>
> -ss
>
> > + if (unlikely(!init_done(zram)))
> > + return -EIO;
> > +
> > if (!valid_io_request(zram, sector, PAGE_SIZE)) {
> > atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.invalid_io);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - down_read(&zram->init_lock);
> > - if (unlikely(!init_done(zram))) {
> > - err = -EIO;
> > - goto out_unlock;
> > - }
> > -
> > index = sector >> SECTORS_PER_PAGE_SHIFT;
> > offset = sector & (SECTORS_PER_PAGE - 1) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> >
> > @@ -970,8 +985,6 @@ static int zram_rw_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> > bv.bv_offset = 0;
> >
> > err = zram_bvec_rw(zram, &bv, index, offset, rw);
> > -out_unlock:
> > - up_read(&zram->init_lock);
> > /*
> > * If I/O fails, just return error(ie, non-zero) without
> > * calling page_endio.
> > @@ -1125,7 +1138,6 @@ static void destroy_device(struct zram *zram)
> >
> > del_gendisk(zram->disk);
> > put_disk(zram->disk);
> > -
> > blk_cleanup_queue(zram->queue);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
> > index e492f6bf11f1..dca265654285 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
> > @@ -107,6 +107,8 @@ struct zram {
> >
> > /* Prevent concurrent execution of device init, reset and R/W request */
> > struct rw_semaphore init_lock;
> > + bool init_done;
> > +
> > /*
> > * This is the limit on amount of *uncompressed* worth of data
> > * we can store in a disk.
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Minchan Kim
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/