On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 04:18:34 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 02:58:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:40:01 -0700 Roman Gushchin <guroan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +static struct vm_struct *__remove_vm_area(struct vmap_area *va)
> > > +{
> > > + struct vm_struct *vm = va->vm;
> > > +
> > > + might_sleep();
> >
> > Where might __remove_vm_area() sleep?
> >
> > >From a quick scan I'm only seeing vfree(), and that has the
> > might_sleep_if(!in_interrupt()).
> >
> > So perhaps we can remove this...
>
> See commit 5803ed292e63 ("mm: mark all calls into the vmalloc subsystem as potentially sleeping")
>
> It looks like the intent is to unconditionally check might_sleep() at
> the entry points to the vmalloc code, rather than only catch them in
> the occasional place where it happens to go wrong.
afaict, vfree() will only do a mutex_trylock() in
try_purge_vmap_area_lazy(). So does vfree actually sleep in any
situation? Whether or not local interrupts are enabled?
