On 12/14/20 4:39 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.12.20 19:08, Waiman Long wrote:
When multiple locks are acquired, they should be released in reverse
order. For s_start() and s_stop() in mm/vmalloc.c, that is not the
case.
s_start: mutex_lock(&vmap_purge_lock); spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
s_stop : mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock); spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
This unlock sequence, though allowed, is not optimal. If a waiter is
present, mutex_unlock() will need to go through the slowpath of waking
up the waiter with preemption disabled. Fix that by releasing the
spinlock first before the mutex.
Fixes: e36176be1c39 ("mm/vmalloc: rework vmap_area_lock")
I'm not sure if this classifies as "Fixes". As you correctly state "is
not optimal". But yeah, releasing a spinlock after releasing a mutex
looks weird already.
Yes, it may not be technically a real bug fix. However, the order just
doesn't look right. That is why I sent out a patch to address that.
Cheers,
Longman
