| Message ID | Zv0kudA9xyGdaA4g@stanley.mountain (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] blk_iocost: remove some duplicate irq disable/enables | expand |
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 13:47:21 +0300, 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. > > Applied, thanks! [1/1] blk_iocost: remove some duplicate irq disable/enables commit: 14d57ec3b86369d0037567f12caae0c9e9eaad9e Best regards,
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@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > --- > 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
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 01:49:48PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > - 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. It's really hard to predict future bugs. I doubt we'll add new callers. Outputting this information to a struct seq_file *sf is pretty specific. If there were a bug related to this, then wouldn't it be caught by lockdep? The other idea is that we could catch bugs like this using static analysis. Like every time we take the &ioc->lock, either IRQs should already be disabled or we disable it ourselves. I could write a Smatch check like this. KTODO: add Smatch check to ensure IRQs are disabled for &ioc->lock regards, dan carpenter
On 10/2/24 14:10, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 01:49:48PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >>> - 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. > It's really hard to predict future bugs. I doubt we'll add new callers. > Outputting this information to a struct seq_file *sf is pretty specific. > > If there were a bug related to this, then wouldn't it be caught by lockdep? > > The other idea is that we could catch bugs like this using static analysis. > Like every time we take the &ioc->lock, either IRQs should already be disabled > or we disable it ourselves. I could write a Smatch check like this. > > KTODO: add Smatch check to ensure IRQs are disabled for &ioc->lock This is just a suggestion and it is fine if you don't think it is necessary. The call can also serve as a comment that irq should have been disabled at this point. Cheers, Longman
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > On 10/2/24 14:10, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 01:49:48PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > - 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. > > It's really hard to predict future bugs. I doubt we'll add new callers. > > Outputting this information to a struct seq_file *sf is pretty specific. > > > > If there were a bug related to this, then wouldn't it be caught by lockdep? > > > > The other idea is that we could catch bugs like this using static analysis. > > Like every time we take the &ioc->lock, either IRQs should already be disabled > > or we disable it ourselves. I could write a Smatch check like this. > > > > KTODO: add Smatch check to ensure IRQs are disabled for &ioc->lock > > This is just a suggestion and it is fine if you don't think it is necessary. > The call can also serve as a comment that irq should have been disabled at > this point. I mean it's good to think about preventing future bugs. I just feel like when it comes to adding asserts probably that's more useful when there are a lot of call paths. Meanwhile if we add a static checker rule then we're probably going to find bugs. Boom, maybe I've found one already?: block/blk-iocost.c:3144 ioc_weight_write() warn: expected irq_disable for '&iocg->ioc->lock' block/blk-iocost.c 3090 static ssize_t ioc_weight_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf, 3091 size_t nbytes, loff_t off) 3092 { 3093 struct blkcg *blkcg = css_to_blkcg(of_css(of)); 3094 struct ioc_cgrp *iocc = blkcg_to_iocc(blkcg); 3095 struct blkg_conf_ctx ctx; 3096 struct ioc_now now; 3097 struct ioc_gq *iocg; 3098 u32 v; 3099 int ret; 3100 3101 if (!strchr(buf, ':')) { 3102 struct blkcg_gq *blkg; 3103 3104 if (!sscanf(buf, "default %u", &v) && !sscanf(buf, "%u", &v)) 3105 return -EINVAL; 3106 3107 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX) 3108 return -EINVAL; 3109 3110 spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock); Here we disable IRQs. 3111 iocc->dfl_weight = v * WEIGHT_ONE; 3112 hlist_for_each_entry(blkg, &blkcg->blkg_list, blkcg_node) { 3113 struct ioc_gq *iocg = blkg_to_iocg(blkg); 3114 3115 if (iocg) { 3116 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); So this is fine. 3117 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now); 3118 weight_updated(iocg, &now); 3119 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock); 3120 } 3121 } 3122 spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock); 3123 3124 return nbytes; 3125 } 3126 3127 blkg_conf_init(&ctx, buf); 3128 3129 ret = blkg_conf_prep(blkcg, &blkcg_policy_iocost, &ctx); 3130 if (ret) 3131 goto err; 3132 3133 iocg = blkg_to_iocg(ctx.blkg); 3134 3135 if (!strncmp(ctx.body, "default", 7)) { 3136 v = 0; 3137 } else { 3138 if (!sscanf(ctx.body, "%u", &v)) 3139 goto einval; 3140 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX) 3141 goto einval; 3142 } 3143 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's fine. 3145 iocg->cfg_weight = v * WEIGHT_ONE; 3146 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now); 3147 weight_updated(iocg, &now); 3148 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock); 3149 3150 blkg_conf_exit(&ctx); 3151 return nbytes; 3152 3153 einval: 3154 ret = -EINVAL; 3155 err: 3156 blkg_conf_exit(&ctx); 3157 return ret; 3158 } regards, dan carpenter
On 10/3/24 6:03 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > 3117 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now); > 3118 weight_updated(iocg, &now); > 3119 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock); > 3120 } > 3121 } > 3122 spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock); > 3123 > 3124 return nbytes; > 3125 } > 3126 > 3127 blkg_conf_init(&ctx, buf); > 3128 > 3129 ret = blkg_conf_prep(blkcg, &blkcg_policy_iocost, &ctx); > 3130 if (ret) > 3131 goto err; > 3132 > 3133 iocg = blkg_to_iocg(ctx.blkg); > 3134 > 3135 if (!strncmp(ctx.body, "default", 7)) { > 3136 v = 0; > 3137 } else { > 3138 if (!sscanf(ctx.body, "%u", &v)) > 3139 goto einval; > 3140 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX) > 3141 goto einval; > 3142 } > 3143 > 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); > > But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's > fine. That's a bug.
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 07:21:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/3/24 6:03 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > 3117 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now); > > 3118 weight_updated(iocg, &now); > > 3119 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock); > > 3120 } > > 3121 } > > 3122 spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock); > > 3123 > > 3124 return nbytes; > > 3125 } > > 3126 > > 3127 blkg_conf_init(&ctx, buf); > > 3128 > > 3129 ret = blkg_conf_prep(blkcg, &blkcg_policy_iocost, &ctx); > > 3130 if (ret) > > 3131 goto err; > > 3132 > > 3133 iocg = blkg_to_iocg(ctx.blkg); > > 3134 > > 3135 if (!strncmp(ctx.body, "default", 7)) { > > 3136 v = 0; > > 3137 } else { > > 3138 if (!sscanf(ctx.body, "%u", &v)) > > 3139 goto einval; > > 3140 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX) > > 3141 goto einval; > > 3142 } > > 3143 > > 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); > > > > But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's > > fine. > > That's a bug. > I could obviously write this patch but I feel stupid writing the commit message. My level of understanding is Monkey See Monkey do. Could you take care of this? So somewhere we're taking a lock in the IRQ handler and this can lead to a deadlock? I thought this would have been caught by lockdep? regards, dan carpenter
On 10/3/24 8:31 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 07:21:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/3/24 6:03 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> 3117 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now); >>> 3118 weight_updated(iocg, &now); >>> 3119 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock); >>> 3120 } >>> 3121 } >>> 3122 spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock); >>> 3123 >>> 3124 return nbytes; >>> 3125 } >>> 3126 >>> 3127 blkg_conf_init(&ctx, buf); >>> 3128 >>> 3129 ret = blkg_conf_prep(blkcg, &blkcg_policy_iocost, &ctx); >>> 3130 if (ret) >>> 3131 goto err; >>> 3132 >>> 3133 iocg = blkg_to_iocg(ctx.blkg); >>> 3134 >>> 3135 if (!strncmp(ctx.body, "default", 7)) { >>> 3136 v = 0; >>> 3137 } else { >>> 3138 if (!sscanf(ctx.body, "%u", &v)) >>> 3139 goto einval; >>> 3140 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX) >>> 3141 goto einval; >>> 3142 } >>> 3143 >>> 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); >>> >>> But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's >>> fine. >> >> That's a bug. >> > > I could obviously write this patch but I feel stupid writing the > commit message. My level of understanding is Monkey See Monkey do. > Could you take care of this? Sure - or let's add Tejun who knows this code better. Ah he's already added. Tejun? > So somewhere we're taking a lock in the IRQ handler and this can lead > to a deadlock? I thought this would have been caught by lockdep? It's nested inside blkcg->lock which is IRQ safe, that is enough. But doing a quick scan of the file, the usage is definitely (widly) inconsistent. Most times ioc->lock is grabbed disabling interrupts, but there are also uses that doesn't disable interrupts, coming from things like seq_file show paths which certainly look like they need it. lockdep should certainly warn about this, only explanation I have is that nobody bothered to do that :-)
On 10/3/24 10:38, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/3/24 8:31 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 07:21:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 10/3/24 6:03 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>> 3117 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now); >>>> 3118 weight_updated(iocg, &now); >>>> 3119 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock); >>>> 3120 } >>>> 3121 } >>>> 3122 spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock); >>>> 3123 >>>> 3124 return nbytes; >>>> 3125 } >>>> 3126 >>>> 3127 blkg_conf_init(&ctx, buf); >>>> 3128 >>>> 3129 ret = blkg_conf_prep(blkcg, &blkcg_policy_iocost, &ctx); >>>> 3130 if (ret) >>>> 3131 goto err; >>>> 3132 >>>> 3133 iocg = blkg_to_iocg(ctx.blkg); >>>> 3134 >>>> 3135 if (!strncmp(ctx.body, "default", 7)) { >>>> 3136 v = 0; >>>> 3137 } else { >>>> 3138 if (!sscanf(ctx.body, "%u", &v)) >>>> 3139 goto einval; >>>> 3140 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX) >>>> 3141 goto einval; >>>> 3142 } >>>> 3143 >>>> 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); >>>> >>>> But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's >>>> fine. >>> That's a bug. >>> >> I could obviously write this patch but I feel stupid writing the >> commit message. My level of understanding is Monkey See Monkey do. >> Could you take care of this? > Sure - or let's add Tejun who knows this code better. Ah he's already > added. Tejun? > >> So somewhere we're taking a lock in the IRQ handler and this can lead >> to a deadlock? I thought this would have been caught by lockdep? > It's nested inside blkcg->lock which is IRQ safe, that is enough. But > doing a quick scan of the file, the usage is definitely (widly) > inconsistent. Most times ioc->lock is grabbed disabling interrupts, but > there are also uses that doesn't disable interrupts, coming from things > like seq_file show paths which certainly look like they need it. lockdep > should certainly warn about this, only explanation I have is that nobody > bothered to do that :-) The lockdep validator will only warn about this if a debug kernel with lockdep enabled has run a workload that exercises all the relevant locking sequences that can implicate a potential for deadlock. Cheers, Longman
On 10/3/24 9:49 AM, Waiman Long wrote: > On 10/3/24 10:38, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/3/24 8:31 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 07:21:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 10/3/24 6:03 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>>> 3117 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now); >>>>> 3118 weight_updated(iocg, &now); >>>>> 3119 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock); >>>>> 3120 } >>>>> 3121 } >>>>> 3122 spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock); >>>>> 3123 >>>>> 3124 return nbytes; >>>>> 3125 } >>>>> 3126 >>>>> 3127 blkg_conf_init(&ctx, buf); >>>>> 3128 >>>>> 3129 ret = blkg_conf_prep(blkcg, &blkcg_policy_iocost, &ctx); >>>>> 3130 if (ret) >>>>> 3131 goto err; >>>>> 3132 >>>>> 3133 iocg = blkg_to_iocg(ctx.blkg); >>>>> 3134 >>>>> 3135 if (!strncmp(ctx.body, "default", 7)) { >>>>> 3136 v = 0; >>>>> 3137 } else { >>>>> 3138 if (!sscanf(ctx.body, "%u", &v)) >>>>> 3139 goto einval; >>>>> 3140 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX) >>>>> 3141 goto einval; >>>>> 3142 } >>>>> 3143 >>>>> 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); >>>>> >>>>> But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's >>>>> fine. >>>> That's a bug. >>>> >>> I could obviously write this patch but I feel stupid writing the >>> commit message. My level of understanding is Monkey See Monkey do. >>> Could you take care of this? >> Sure - or let's add Tejun who knows this code better. Ah he's already >> added. Tejun? >> >>> So somewhere we're taking a lock in the IRQ handler and this can lead >>> to a deadlock? I thought this would have been caught by lockdep? >> It's nested inside blkcg->lock which is IRQ safe, that is enough. But >> doing a quick scan of the file, the usage is definitely (widly) >> inconsistent. Most times ioc->lock is grabbed disabling interrupts, but >> there are also uses that doesn't disable interrupts, coming from things >> like seq_file show paths which certainly look like they need it. lockdep >> should certainly warn about this, only explanation I have is that nobody >> bothered to do that :-) > > The lockdep validator will only warn about this if a debug kernel with > lockdep enabled has run a workload that exercises all the relevant > locking sequences that can implicate a potential for deadlock. Sure that's obvious, but there are quite a few easy ones in there, so seems like it should be easy to trigger. It's not like it's only some odd path, the irq on/off looks trivial.
Hello, On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:38:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: ... > >>> 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock); > >>> > >>> But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's > >>> fine. > >> > >> That's a bug. > >> > > > > I could obviously write this patch but I feel stupid writing the > > commit message. My level of understanding is Monkey See Monkey do. > > Could you take care of this? > > Sure - or let's add Tejun who knows this code better. Ah he's already > added. Tejun? Yeah, that should be spin_lock_irq() for consistency but at the same time it doesn't look like anything is actually grabbing that lock (or blkcg->lock nesting outside of it) from an IRQ context, so no actual deadlock scenario exists and lockdep doesn't trigger. > > So somewhere we're taking a lock in the IRQ handler and this can lead > > to a deadlock? I thought this would have been caught by lockdep? > > It's nested inside blkcg->lock which is IRQ safe, that is enough. But > doing a quick scan of the file, the usage is definitely (widly) > inconsistent. Most times ioc->lock is grabbed disabling interrupts, but Hmm... the only place I see is the one Dan pointed out. > there are also uses that doesn't disable interrupts, coming from things > like seq_file show paths which certainly look like they need it. lockdep > should certainly warn about this, only explanation I have is that nobody > bothered to do that :-) The locks are intended to be IRQ-safe but it looks like they don't need to be at least for now. I'll send a patch to update the ioc_weight_write() pair. Thanks.
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:22:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > Yeah, that should be spin_lock_irq() for consistency but at the same time it > doesn't look like anything is actually grabbing that lock (or blkcg->lock > nesting outside of it) from an IRQ context, so no actual deadlock scenario > exists and lockdep doesn't trigger. Oh, wait, it's not that. blkg_conf_prep() implies queue_lock, so the IRQ is disabled around it and adding _irq will trigger lockdep. Thanks.
On 10/3/24 3:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:22:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Yeah, that should be spin_lock_irq() for consistency but at the same time it >> doesn't look like anything is actually grabbing that lock (or blkcg->lock >> nesting outside of it) from an IRQ context, so no actual deadlock scenario >> exists and lockdep doesn't trigger. > > Oh, wait, it's not that. blkg_conf_prep() implies queue_lock, so the IRQ is > disabled around it and adding _irq will trigger lockdep. Ah makes sense, didn't realize it was nested under the queue lock. Then it does look like it's just that one spot.
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:30:44AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:22:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yeah, that should be spin_lock_irq() for consistency but at the same time it > > doesn't look like anything is actually grabbing that lock (or blkcg->lock > > nesting outside of it) from an IRQ context, so no actual deadlock scenario > > exists and lockdep doesn't trigger. > > Oh, wait, it's not that. blkg_conf_prep() implies queue_lock, so the IRQ is > disabled around it and adding _irq will trigger lockdep. > Ugh... Yeah. Sorry for the noise on this. I've fixed my checker to not print this warning any more. regards, dan carpenter
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; }
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@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> --- v2: Fix typo in the subject block/blk-iocost.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)