lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: vmalloc: Switch to find_unlink_vmap_area() in vm_unmap_ram()
Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

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@gmail.com>
> ---
> 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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:17    [W:0.387 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site