On 2021-01-14 18:15:08 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
>
> Basically, yes. Minchan was very clear that he didn't want to remove
> that inter-function locking, so be it.
> I wouldn't really advise to use zsmalloc with zswap because zsmalloc
> has no support for reclaim, nevertheless I wouldn't like thi
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:56 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-14 17:29:37 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, 17:18 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior,
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2020-12-23 19:25:02 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > > > write the following patch according
On 2021-01-14 17:29:37 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, 17:18 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior,
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-12-23 19:25:02 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > > write the following patch according to your idea, what do you think ?
> > >
> > > Yep, that is basically what I was
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, 17:18 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior,
wrote:
>
> On 2020-12-23 19:25:02 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > write the following patch according to your idea, what do you think ?
> >
> > Yep, that is basically what I was thinking of. Some nitpicks below:
>
> Did this go somewhere? The
On 2020-12-23 19:25:02 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > write the following patch according to your idea, what do you think ?
>
> Yep, that is basically what I was thinking of. Some nitpicks below:
Did this go somewhere? The thread just ends here on my end.
Mike, is this patch fixing / helping you
On 2020-12-20 08:21:37 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> Not really because bit spinlock leaves preemption disabled.
It leaves it disabled for a reason. Now you just spin until the original
context gets back on the CPU. On UP with preemption, if the "lock owner"
gets preempted, the next lock attempt w
gt;> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -Original Message-
> >>>>> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 3:03 PM
> >>>>> To: 'Vitaly Wool'
> >
Galbraith ; LKML ; linux-mm
; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ;
NitinGupta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
; Andrew Morton
; tiantao (H)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 03:11 Song Bao Hua (Barry Song),
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song
; Minchan Kim ;
> > Mike
> > Galbraith ; LKML ; linux-mm
> > ; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ;
> > NitinGupta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > ; Andrew Morton
> > ; tiantao (H)
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> > On Tue, 22 D
pta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> ; Andrew Morton
> ; tiantao (H)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 03:11 Song Bao Hua (Barry Song),
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Son
t; Mike
> > Galbraith ; LKML ; linux-mm
> > ; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ;
> > NitinGupta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > ; Andrew Morton
> > ; tiantao (H)
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> >
> > > I'm still not c
From: Song Bao Hua
> Sent: 21 December 2020 23:02
...
> > For decompression, I would like as low latency as possible which I
> > think is only possible by doing decompression on a cpu synchronously.
>
> One possibility is that we change HW accelerator driver to be sync
> polling for decompression.
y
> ; Andrew Morton
> ; tiantao (H)
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
>
> > I'm still not convinced. Will kmap what, src? At this point src might become
> just a bogus pointer.
>
> As long as the memory is still there, we can kmap it b
> I'm still not convinced. Will kmap what, src? At this point src might become
> just a bogus pointer.
As long as the memory is still there, we can kmap it by its page struct. But if
it is not there anymore, we have no way.
> Why couldn't the object have been moved somewhere else (due to the c
sky
> ; Andrew Morton
>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vitaly Wool [mailto:vitaly.w...@konsulko.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 2:00 PM
> > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
pta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> ; Andrew Morton
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:37 AM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Song Bao Hua
n Kim ;
> > Mike
> > Galbraith ; LKML ; linux-mm
> > ; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ;
> > NitinGupta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > ; Andrew Morton
> >
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original
sky
> ; Andrew Morton
>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vitaly Wool [mailto:vitaly.w...@konsulko.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:12 AM
> > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
pta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> ; Andrew Morton
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:30 PM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Shakeel But
; Minchan Kim
> > ;
> > Mike Galbraith ; LKML ;
> > linux-mm
> > ; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ;
> > NitinGupta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > ; Andrew Morton
> >
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> > On Mon, Dec
pta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> ; Andrew Morton
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:30 PM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Shakeel But
; Minchan Kim
> > ;
> > Mike Galbraith ; LKML ;
> > linux-mm
> > ; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ;
> > NitinGupta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > ; Andrew Morton
> >
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> > On Mon, Dec
pta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> ; Andrew Morton
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:06 PM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Shakeel Bu
th ; LKML
> > ; linux-mm ; Song Bao Hua
> > (Barry Song) ; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > ; NitinGupta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > ; Andrew Morton
> >
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 08:20:26PM +0100, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:24 PM Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> > > only in unmap() which is unsafe and
pta ; Sergey Senozhatsky
> ; Andrew Morton
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM Vitaly Wool wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:24 PM Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM Vitaly Wool wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:24 PM Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> > > only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:24 PM Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> > only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> > about scheduling in atomic context.
> >
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> about scheduling in atomic context.
>
> To fix that and to improve RT properties of zsmalloc, remove
a (Barry Song) ; Sebastian
> > Andrzej
> > Siewior ; Minchan Kim ;
> > NitinGupta
> >
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> > On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:2
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:efa...@gmx.de]
> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 8:48 PM
> To: Vitaly Wool ; LKML
> ; linux-mm
> Cc: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) ; Sebastian Andrzej
> Siewior ; Minchan Kim ; NitinGupta
>
> Subject: Re: [
On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:22 +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> > only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> > about scheduling in atomic context.
> >
> >
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 2:18 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> > only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> > about scheduling in atomic context.
>
On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:22 +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> > only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> > about scheduling in atomic context.
> >
> >
On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:22 +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> about scheduling in atomic context.
>
> To fix that and to improve RT properties of zsmalloc, remove that
> b
On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:22 +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> about scheduling in atomic context.
>
> To fix that and to improve RT properties of zsmalloc, remove that
> b
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it
> only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> about scheduling in atomic context.
>
> To fix that and to improve RT properties of zsmalloc, remove
37 matches
Mail list logo
