When !start_pte is true, the "pml" spinlock is still being holded and the branch "out_pte" is taken. If "ptl" is equal to "pml", the lock "pml" will still be locked when the function returns. It'll be better to set a new branch "out_pte" and jump to it when !start_pte is true at the first place, therefore no additional check for "start_pte" or "ptl != pml" is needed, simply unlock "pml" and return. Signed-off-by: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@xxxxxxxxx> --- mm/pt_reclaim.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mm/pt_reclaim.c b/mm/pt_reclaim.c index 7e9455a18aae..163e38f1728d 100644 --- a/mm/pt_reclaim.c +++ b/mm/pt_reclaim.c @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ void try_to_free_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, pml = pmd_lock(mm, pmd); start_pte = pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(mm, pmd, addr, &pmdval, &ptl); if (!start_pte) - goto out_ptl; + goto out_pte; if (ptl != pml) spin_lock_nested(ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); @@ -68,4 +68,8 @@ void try_to_free_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl); if (ptl != pml) spin_unlock(pml); + return; + +out_pte: + spin_unlock(pml); } -- 2.43.0
