Re: [PATCH v2] blk_iocost: remove some duplicate irq disable/enables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/2/24 06:47, Dan Carpenter wrote:
These are called from blkcg_print_blkgs() which already disables IRQs so
disabling it again is wrong.  It means that IRQs will be enabled slightly
earlier than intended, however, so far as I can see, this bug is harmless.

Fixes: 35198e323001 ("blk-iocost: read params inside lock in sysfs apis")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
---
v2: Fix typo in the subject

  block/blk-iocost.c | 8 ++++----
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c
index 9dc9323f84ac..384aa15e8260 100644
--- a/block/blk-iocost.c
+++ b/block/blk-iocost.c
@@ -3166,7 +3166,7 @@ static u64 ioc_qos_prfill(struct seq_file *sf, struct blkg_policy_data *pd,
  	if (!dname)
  		return 0;
- spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_lock(&ioc->lock);
  	seq_printf(sf, "%s enable=%d ctrl=%s rpct=%u.%02u rlat=%u wpct=%u.%02u wlat=%u min=%u.%02u max=%u.%02u\n",
  		   dname, ioc->enabled, ioc->user_qos_params ? "user" : "auto",
  		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_RPPM] / 10000,
@@ -3179,7 +3179,7 @@ static u64 ioc_qos_prfill(struct seq_file *sf, struct blkg_policy_data *pd,
  		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_MIN] % 10000 / 100,
  		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_MAX] / 10000,
  		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_MAX] % 10000 / 100);
-	spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_unlock(&ioc->lock);
  	return 0;
  }
@@ -3366,14 +3366,14 @@ static u64 ioc_cost_model_prfill(struct seq_file *sf,
  	if (!dname)
  		return 0;
- spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_lock(&ioc->lock);
  	seq_printf(sf, "%s ctrl=%s model=linear "
  		   "rbps=%llu rseqiops=%llu rrandiops=%llu "
  		   "wbps=%llu wseqiops=%llu wrandiops=%llu\n",
  		   dname, ioc->user_cost_model ? "user" : "auto",
  		   u[I_LCOEF_RBPS], u[I_LCOEF_RSEQIOPS], u[I_LCOEF_RRANDIOPS],
  		   u[I_LCOEF_WBPS], u[I_LCOEF_WSEQIOPS], u[I_LCOEF_WRANDIOPS]);
-	spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_unlock(&ioc->lock);
  	return 0;
  }

I would suggest adding a "lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled()" call before spin_lock() to confirm that irq is indeed disabled just in case the callers are changed in the future.

Cheers,
Longman





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux