On 1/6/23 1:45 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 10:34:10AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Dan reports the following smatch detected the following:
>>
>> block/blk-cgroup.c:1863 blkcg_schedule_throttle() warn: sleeping in atomic context
>>
>> caused by blkcg_schedule_throttle() calling blk_put_queue() in an
>> non-sleepable context.
>>
>> blk_put_queue() acquired might_sleep() in 63f93fd6fa57 ("block: mark
>> blk_put_queue as potentially blocking") which transferred the might_sleep()
>> from blk_free_queue().
>>
>> blk_free_queue() acquired might_sleep() in e8c7d14ac6c3 ("block: revert back
>> to synchronous request_queue removal") while turning request_queue removal
>> synchronous. However, this isn't necessary as nothing in the free path
>> actually requires sleeping.
>>
>> It's pretty unusual to require a sleeping context in a put operation and
>> it's not needed in the first place. Let's drop it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Y7g3L6fntnTtOm63@kili
>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Fixes: e8c7d14ac6c3 ("block: revert back to synchronous request_queue removal") # v5.9+
>
> *tons* has changed since e8c7d14ac6c3 and so the bots might think that
> *if* this patch is applied upstream it is justified for older kernels
> and I don't think that's yet been verified and doubt it.
>
> And so I think adding a "Fixes" tag is not appropriate here.
>
> First I'd like to hear from Christoph if he agrees with this patch
> upstream. For stable, someone would have to do the homework.
Outside of the easily audited paths, the kobj release paths are the
only ones of concern. And I didn't spot anything that sleeps. Looks
fine to me.
--
Jens Axboe
