Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Fix unlock order in s_stop()

[Waiman Long]

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