Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: zram: minimize `slot_free_lock' usage (v2)

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (09/09/13 17:52), Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:42:59PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > 3) Explain why it is safe to test zram->slot_free_rq when we are not
> > >    holding the lock.  I think it is unsafe.  I don't want to even think
> > >    about it without the numbers.
> > 
> > atomic pointer test, which is either NULL or !NULL.
> > 
> 
> That's not how concurency works.  Atomic types are complicated than
> that.  Anyway, the zram maintainers don't need me to explain that to
> them so I'll let them take over from here.
> 

yes, I understand that. but can't we check slot_free_rq pointer
(32 or 64 bit read) w/o locking to just decide if we must:
-- call handle_pending_slot_free()
-- take the slot_free_lock
-- check slot_free_rq again (this time under the slot_free_lock) and perform
   slot_free_rq operations while it is !NULL.

	-ss

> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
--
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/