Re: [PATCH v2] zsmalloc: fix migrate_zspage-zs_free race condition
From: Sergey Senozhatsky
Date: Mon Jan 18 2016 - 02:04:00 EST
oh, you replied in this thread.
On (01/18/16 15:32), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > free_obj = obj_malloc(d_page, class, handle);
> > zs_object_copy(free_obj, used_obj, class);
> > index++;
> > + /* This also effectively unpins the handle */
> > record_obj(handle, free_obj);
> > - unpin_tag(handle);
> > obj_free(pool, class, used_obj);
> > }
> > But I'd still recommend WRITE_ONCE in record_obj(). And I'm not even sure it's
> Thanks for the reivew. Yeah, we need WRITE_ONCE in record_obj but
> your version will not work. IMHO, WRITE_ONCE can prevent store-tearing
> but it couldn't prevent reordering. IOW, we need some barrier as unlock
> and clear_bit_unlock includes it.
> So, we shouldn't omit unpin_tag there.
but there is only one store operation after this patch.
static void record_obj(unsigned long handle, unsigned long obj)
*(unsigned long *)handle = obj;
does the re-ordering problem exist? zs_free() will see the
old pinned handle and spin, until record_obj() from migrate.
> > safe on all architectures to do a simple overwrite of a word against somebody
> > else trying to lock a bit there?
> Hmm, I think it shouldn't be a problem. It's word-alinged, word-sized
> store so it should be atomic.
> As other example, we have been used lock_page for a bit of page->flags
> and used other bits in there with __set_bit(ie, __SetPageXXX).
> I guess it's same situation with us just except we are spinning there.
> But it is worth to dobule check so need to help lock guys.