mm/vmalloc: Fix unlock order in s_stop()

stable inclusion
from stable-5.10.4
commit 4a9d8b0789e300476da1f8a59ae79642a0e63687
bugzilla: 46903

--------------------------------

[ Upstream commit 0a7dd4e9 ]

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.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201213180843.16938-1-longman@redhat.com
Fixes: e36176be ("mm/vmalloc: rework vmap_area_lock")
Signed-off-by: NWaiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: NUladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: NDavid Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NChen Jun <chenjun102@huawei.com>
Acked-by: NXie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>

mm/vmalloc.c

@@ -3448,11 +3448,11 @@ static void *s_next(struct seq_file *m, void *p, loff_t *pos)
 }
 
 static void s_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
-	__releases(&vmap_purge_lock)
 	__releases(&vmap_area_lock)
+	__releases(&vmap_purge_lock)
 {
-	mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
 	spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
+	mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
 }
 
 static void show_numa_info(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_struct *v)