lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Fix unlock order in s_stop()
From
Date
On 12/14/20 4:39 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.12.20 19:08, Waiman Long wrote:
>> When multiple locks are acquired, they should be released in reverse
>> order. For s_start() and s_stop() in mm/vmalloc.c, that is not the
>> case.
>>
>> s_start: mutex_lock(&vmap_purge_lock); spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
>> s_stop : mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock); spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
>>
>> This unlock sequence, though allowed, is not optimal. If a waiter is
>> present, mutex_unlock() will need to go through the slowpath of waking
>> up the waiter with preemption disabled. Fix that by releasing the
>> spinlock first before the mutex.
>>
>> Fixes: e36176be1c39 ("mm/vmalloc: rework vmap_area_lock")
> I'm not sure if this classifies as "Fixes". As you correctly state "is
> not optimal". But yeah, releasing a spinlock after releasing a mutex
> looks weird already.
>
Yes, it may not be technically a real bug fix. However, the order just
doesn't look right. That is why I sent out a patch to address that.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-14 16:10    [W:0.724 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site