Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756905AbeAHUP5 (ORCPT + 1 other); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:15:57 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f196.google.com ([209.85.223.196]:43526 "EHLO mail-io0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754128AbeAHUPo (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:15:44 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosQ0wl8rWC425Yplr0JOOAD1G/Ijc2z0XpKXTmIrd5Eiu8t/S1EZvjjlKcN7nY92DQx3MJo3A== Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] blk-mq: protect completion path with RCU To: =?UTF-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=c3=a4tte?= , Tejun Heo , jack@suse.cz, clm@fb.com, jbacik@fb.com Cc: kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com, Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <20180108191542.379478-1-tj@kernel.org> <20180108191542.379478-3-tj@kernel.org> <774b9fa0-c1f9-f528-09c3-2f3bd67e0fd5@applied-asynchrony.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <93157cfd-7c3c-c260-14e2-25784fe43314@kernel.dk> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:15:40 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/57.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <774b9fa0-c1f9-f528-09c3-2f3bd67e0fd5@applied-asynchrony.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On 1/8/18 12:57 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On 01/08/18 20:15, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch >> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be >> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches, >> which will also add the comments. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo >> --- >> block/blk-mq.c | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c >> index ddc9261..6741c3e 100644 >> --- a/block/blk-mq.c >> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c >> @@ -584,11 +584,16 @@ static void hctx_lock(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, int *srcu_idx) >> void blk_mq_complete_request(struct request *rq) >> { >> struct request_queue *q = rq->q; >> + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(q, rq->mq_ctx->cpu); >> + int srcu_idx; >> >> if (unlikely(blk_should_fake_timeout(q))) >> return; >> + >> + hctx_lock(hctx, &srcu_idx); >> if (!blk_mark_rq_complete(rq)) >> __blk_mq_complete_request(rq); >> + hctx_unlock(hctx, srcu_idx); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_complete_request); > > So I've had v3 running fine with 4.14++ and when I first tried Jens' > additional helpers on top, I got a bunch of warnings which I didn't > investigate further at the time. Now they are back since the helpers > moved into patch #1 and #2 correctly says: > > .. > block/blk-mq.c: In function ‘blk_mq_complete_request’: > ./include/linux/srcu.h:175:2: warning: ‘srcu_idx’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > __srcu_read_unlock(sp, idx); > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > block/blk-mq.c:587:6: note: ‘srcu_idx’ was declared here > int srcu_idx; > ^~~~~~~~ > ..etc. > > This is with gcc 7.2.0. > > I understand that this is a somewhat-false positive since the lock always > precedes the unlock & writes to the value, but can we properly initialize > or annotate this? It's not a somewhat false positive, it's a false positive. I haven't seen that bogus warning with the compiler I'm running: gcc (Ubuntu 7.2.0-1ubuntu1~16.04) 7.2.0 and gcc (GCC) 7.2.0 Neither of them throw the warning. -- Jens Axboe