On 12/26/24 18:07, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> vma_start_write() is used in many places and will grow in size very soon.
> It is not used in performance critical paths and uninlining it should
> limit the future code size growth.
> No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -6328,6 +6328,20 @@ struct vm_area_struct *lock_mm_and_find_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
> #endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> +void __vma_start_write(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned int mm_lock_seq)
> +{
> + down_write(&vma->vm_lock.lock);
> + /*
> + * We should use WRITE_ONCE() here because we can have concurrent reads
> + * from the early lockless pessimistic check in vma_start_read().
> + * We don't really care about the correctness of that early check, but
> + * we should use WRITE_ONCE() for cleanliness and to keep KCSAN happy.
> + */
> + WRITE_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq, mm_lock_seq);
> + up_write(&vma->vm_lock.lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vma_start_write);
Do any modules need it? If not we shouldn't export.
> /*
> * Lookup and lock a VMA under RCU protection. Returned VMA is guaranteed to be
> * stable and not isolated. If the VMA is not found or is being modified the
