On 5/18/22 4:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/18/22 1:28 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 16.05.2022 19:39, bh1scw@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Fanjun Kong <bh1scw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq contains preempt_disable/enable().
>>> Which can serve as RCU read-side critical region, so remove
>>> rcu_read_lock/unlock().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fanjun Kong <bh1scw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> This patch landed in today's linux next-20220518 as commit 77c570a1ea85
>> ("blk-cgroup: Remove unnecessary rcu_read_lock/unlock()").
>>
>> Unfortunately it triggers the following warning on ARM64 based Raspberry
>> Pi 4B board:>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at block/blk-cgroup.c:301 blkg_create+0x398/0x4e0
>
> Should this use rcu_read_lock_any_held() rather than
> rcu_read_lock_held()?
I think the better alternative is just to delete the WARN_ON(), we have
a:
lockdep_assert_held(&q->queue_lock);
right after it. Since the queue_lock is IRQ disabling, having two checks
serves no purpose. I'll kill the line.
--
Jens Axboe
