lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: do not use mutex lock in atomic context
From
Date
On 2019-2-14 15:46, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:25:31AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/2/4 16:06, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>> Fix below warning coming because of using mutex lock in atomic context.
>>>
>>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:98
>>> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 585, name: sh
>>> Preemption disabled at: __radix_tree_preload+0x28/0x130
>>> Call trace:
>>> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2b4
>>> show_stack+0x20/0x28
>>> dump_stack+0xa8/0xe0
>>> ___might_sleep+0x144/0x194
>>> __might_sleep+0x58/0x8c
>>> mutex_lock+0x2c/0x48
>>> f2fs_trace_pid+0x88/0x14c
>>> f2fs_set_node_page_dirty+0xd0/0x184
>>>
>>> Do not use f2fs_radix_tree_insert() to avoid doing cond_resched() with
>>> spin_lock() acquired.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/trace.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/trace.c b/fs/f2fs/trace.c
>>> index ce2a5eb..d0ab533 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/trace.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/trace.c
>>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
>>> #include "trace.h"
>>>
>>> static RADIX_TREE(pids, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> -static struct mutex pids_lock;
>>> +static spinlock_t pids_lock;
>>> static struct last_io_info last_io;
>>>
>>> static inline void __print_last_io(void)
>>> @@ -58,23 +58,29 @@ void f2fs_trace_pid(struct page *page)
>>>
>>> set_page_private(page, (unsigned long)pid);
>>>
>>> +retry:
>>> if (radix_tree_preload(GFP_NOFS))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> - mutex_lock(&pids_lock);
>>> + spin_lock(&pids_lock);
>>> p = radix_tree_lookup(&pids, pid);
>>> if (p == current)
>>> goto out;
>>> if (p)
>>> radix_tree_delete(&pids, pid);
>>>
>>> - f2fs_radix_tree_insert(&pids, pid, current);
>>> + if (radix_tree_insert(&pids, pid, current)) {
>>> + spin_unlock(&pids_lock);
>>> + radix_tree_preload_end();
>>> + cond_resched();
>>> + goto retry;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> trace_printk("%3x:%3x %4x %-16s\n",
>>> MAJOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev), MINOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev),
>>> pid, current->comm);
>>
>> Hi Sahitya,
>>
>> Can trace_printk sleep? For safety, how about moving it out of spinlock?
>>
> Hi Chao,
>
> Yes, trace_printk() is safe to use in atomic context (unlike printk).

Hi Sahitya,

Thanks for your confirmation. :)

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>

Thanks,

>
> Thanks,
> Sahitya.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> out:
>>> - mutex_unlock(&pids_lock);
>>> + spin_unlock(&pids_lock);
>>> radix_tree_preload_end();
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -119,7 +125,7 @@ void f2fs_trace_ios(struct f2fs_io_info *fio, int flush)
>>>
>>> void f2fs_build_trace_ios(void)
>>> {
>>> - mutex_init(&pids_lock);
>>> + spin_lock_init(&pids_lock);
>>> }
>>>
>>> #define PIDVEC_SIZE 128
>>> @@ -147,7 +153,7 @@ void f2fs_destroy_trace_ios(void)
>>> pid_t next_pid = 0;
>>> unsigned int found;
>>>
>>> - mutex_lock(&pids_lock);
>>> + spin_lock(&pids_lock);
>>> while ((found = gang_lookup_pids(pid, next_pid, PIDVEC_SIZE))) {
>>> unsigned idx;
>>>
>>> @@ -155,5 +161,5 @@ void f2fs_destroy_trace_ios(void)
>>> for (idx = 0; idx < found; idx++)
>>> radix_tree_delete(&pids, pid[idx]);
>>> }
>>> - mutex_unlock(&pids_lock);
>>> + spin_unlock(&pids_lock);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-14 17:10    [W:0.093 / U:6.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site