On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
@@ -787,7 +893,10 @@ static inline void vma_start_write(struct vm_area_struct *vma) * we should use WRITE_ONCE() for cleanliness and to keep KCSAN happy. */ WRITE_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq, mm_lock_seq); - up_write(&vma->vm_lock.lock); + /* Write barrier to ensure vm_lock_seq change is visible before count */ + smp_wmb(); + rwsem_release(&vma->vm_lock.dep_map, _RET_IP_); + atomic_set(&vma->vm_lock.count, VMA_LOCK_UNLOCKED);
Too many barriers here. Just do atomic_set_release and remove that smp_wmb(). And what you are doing is really ensuring nothing leaks out of the critical region, so that comment should also be more generic. I would expect regression testing to catch this sort of thing. ...
#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK + struct wait_queue_head vma_writer_wait;
You might want to use rcuwait here instead, which is much more optimized for the single waiter requirement vmas have. Thanks, Davidlohr