Hi Sergey,

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:04:08AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello Minchan,
> 
> On (03/30/16 16:12), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > @@ -1835,23 +1827,31 @@ static void __zs_compact(struct zs_pool *pool, 
> > struct size_class *class)
> >                     if (!migrate_zspage(pool, class, &cc))
> >                             break;
> >  
> > -                   putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
> > +                   VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> > +                           dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> can this VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() condition ever be true?

I guess it is remained thing after I rebased to catch any mistake.
But I'm heavily chainging this part.
Please review next version instead of this after a few days. :)

> 
> >             }
> >             /* Stop if we couldn't find slot */
> >             if (dst_page == NULL)
> >                     break;
> > -           putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
> > -           if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY)
> > +           VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> > +                           dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> hm... this VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(dst_page) is sort of confusing. under what
> circumstances it can be true?
> 
> a minor nit, it took me some time (need some coffee I guess) to
> correctly parse this macro wrapper
> 
>               VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
>                       dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> may be do it like:
>               fullness = putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
>               VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(fullness == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> 
> well, if we want to VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() at all. there haven't been any
> problems with compaction, is there any specific reason these macros
> were added?
> 
> 
> 
> > +           if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY) {
> >                     pool->stats.pages_compacted += class->pages_per_zspage;
> > -           spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> > +                   spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> > +                   free_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
> 
> do we really need to free_zspage() out of class->lock?
> wouldn't something like this
> 
>               if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY) {
>                       pool->stats.pages_compacted += class->pages_per_zspage;
>                       free_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
>               }
>               spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> 
> be simpler?

The reason I did out of class->lock is deadlock between page_lock
and class->lock with upcoming page migration.
However, as I said, I'm now heavily changing the part. :)

> 
> besides, free_zspage() now updates class stats out of class lock,
> not critical but still.
> 
>       -ss
> 
> > +           } else {
> > +                   spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> > +           }
> > +
> >             cond_resched();
> >             spin_lock(&class->lock);
> >     }
> >  
> >     if (src_page)
> > -           putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
> > +           VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> > +                           src_page) == ZS_EMPTY, src_page);
> >  
> >     spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> >  }

Reply via email to