| Message ID | 20240705125058.1564001-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t. | expand |
On 2024-07-05 14:49:13 [+0200], To linux-block@vger.kernel.org wrote: Hi, > this is follow up to the previous posting, making the lock > unconditionally. The original problem with bit spinlock is that it > disabled preemption and the following operations (within the atomic > section) perform operations that may sleep on PREEMPT_RT. Mike expressed > that he would like to keep using zram on PREEMPT_RT. > > v2…v3 https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240620153556.777272-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de/ > - Do "size_t index" within the for loop. Can this be applied, please? Or v2 ;) Sebastian
Hi, this is follow up to the previous posting, making the lock unconditionally. The original problem with bit spinlock is that it disabled preemption and the following operations (within the atomic section) perform operations that may sleep on PREEMPT_RT. Mike expressed that he would like to keep using zram on PREEMPT_RT. v2…v3 https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240620153556.777272-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de/ - Do "size_t index" within the for loop. v1…v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240619150814.BRAvaziM@linutronix.de/: - Add the spinlock_t unconditionally - Remove ZRAM_LOCK since it has no user after the lock has been added. - Make zram_table_entry::flags an integer so struct zram_table_entry does not gain additional weight. Sebastian