On 12/17/22 at 11:44am, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 09:54:30AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > @@ -2229,8 +2236,12 @@ void vm_unmap_ram(const void *mem, unsigned int count)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - va = find_vmap_area(addr);
> > + spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> > + va = __find_vmap_area((unsigned long)addr, &vmap_area_root);
> > BUG_ON(!va);
> > + if (va)
> > + va->flags &= ~VMAP_RAM;
> > + spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
> > debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)va->va_start,
> > (va->va_end - va->va_start));
> > free_unmap_vmap_area(va);
>
> Would it be better to perform the BUG_ON() after the lock is released? You
> already check if va exists before unmasking so it's safe.
It's a little unclear to me why we care BUG_ON() is performed before or
after the lock released. We won't have a stable kernel after BUG_ON()(),
right?
>
> Also, do we want to clear VMAP_BLOCK here?
I do, but I don't find a good place to clear VMAP_BLOCK.
In v1, I tried to clear it in free_vmap_area_noflush() as below,
Uladzislau dislikes it. So I remove it. My thinking is when we unmap and
free the vmap area, the vmap_area is moved from vmap_area_root into
&free_vmap_area_root. When we allocate a new vmap_area via
alloc_vmap_area(), we will allocate a new va by kmem_cache_alloc_node(),
the va->flags must be 0. Seems not initializing it to 0 won't impact
thing.
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index 5d3fd3e6fe09..d6f376060d83 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -1815,6 +1815,7 @@ static void free_vmap_area_noflush(struct vmap_area *va)
spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
unlink_va(va, &vmap_area_root);
+ va->flags = 0;
spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
nr_lazy = atomic_long_add_return((va->va_end - va->va_start) >>
>
