On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:59:22AM +0800, Liu Shixin wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> index 54c2c90d3abc..5a2bbd85df57 100644
> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> @@ -208,6 +208,8 @@ static struct rb_root object_tree_root = RB_ROOT;
> static struct rb_root object_phys_tree_root = RB_ROOT;
> /* protecting the access to object_list, object_tree_root (or object_phys_tree_root) */
> static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(kmemleak_lock);
> +/* Serial delete_object_part() to ensure all objects is deleted correctly */
> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(delete_object_part_mutex);
Don't call this mutex, it implies sleeping.
>
> /* allocation caches for kmemleak internal data */
> static struct kmem_cache *object_cache;
> @@ -784,13 +786,16 @@ static void delete_object_part(unsigned long ptr, size_t size, bool is_phys)
> {
> struct kmemleak_object *object;
> unsigned long start, end;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&delete_object_part_mutex, flags);
> object = find_and_remove_object(ptr, 1, is_phys);
> if (!object) {
> #ifdef DEBUG
> kmemleak_warn("Partially freeing unknown object at 0x%08lx (size %zu)\n",
> ptr, size);
> #endif
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&delete_object_part_mutex, flags);
I prefer a goto out and a single place for unlocking.
However, we already take the kmemleak_lock in find_and_remove_object().
So better to open-code that function here and avoid introducing a new
lock. __create_object() may need a new bool argument, no_lock or
something. Or just split it into separate functions for allocating the
kmemleak structure and adding it to the corresponding trees/lists under
a lock.
--
Catalin
