Looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 06:44:53PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > Switch from find_vmap_area() to find_unlink_vmap_area() to prevent > a double access to the vmap_area_lock: one for finding area, second > time is for unlinking from a tree. > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index 28030d2441f1..17e688cc7357 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -2251,7 +2251,7 @@ void vm_unmap_ram(const void *mem, unsigned int count) > return; > } > > - va = find_vmap_area(addr); > + va = find_unlink_vmap_area(addr); I can't find find_unlink_vmap_area in current -next, but shouldn't this also switch from free_vmap_area_noflush to something that doesn't unlink from the list and avoid the lock? In general the code could probably use a bit of refactoring to split unmapping from freeing.
