On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:07:12AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Mon, 27 May 2019 05:22:28 +0800 Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > > It does not make sense to try to "unlink" the node that is > > definitely not linked with a list nor tree. On the first > > merge step VA just points to the previously disconnected > > busy area. > > > > On the second step, check if the node has been merged and do > > "unlink" if so, because now it points to an object that must > > be linked. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]> > > --- > > Acked-by: Hillf Danton <[email protected]> > Thanks!
> > mm/vmalloc.c | 9 +++------ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > index b553047aa05b..6f91136f2cc8 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -718,9 +718,6 @@ merge_or_add_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va, > > /* Check and update the tree if needed. */ > > augment_tree_propagate_from(sibling); > > > > - /* Remove this VA, it has been merged. */ > > - unlink_va(va, root); > > - > > /* Free vmap_area object. */ > > kmem_cache_free(vmap_area_cachep, va); > > > > @@ -745,12 +742,12 @@ merge_or_add_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va, > > /* Check and update the tree if needed. */ > > augment_tree_propagate_from(sibling); > > > > - /* Remove this VA, it has been merged. */ > > - unlink_va(va, root); > > + /* Remove this VA, if it has been merged. */ > > + if (merged) > > + unlink_va(va, root); > > > The change makes the code much easier to read, thanks. > What is more, checking merged makes the polished comment unnecessary, imo. > And it can be applied, I think, to the above hunk. > That is odd. Will remove it. -- Vlad Rezki
