Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io-wq: Remove unnecessary rcu_read_lock/unlock() in raw
 spinlock critical section
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>
Cc:     asml.silence@gmail.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20211026032304.30323-1-qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>
 <CAMZfGtUXq=nQyijktRaP7xp=sAmVCryTjU4Jo5Z=ufed8arnKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <0efbce2d-1f63-82a7-6479-d8ef062aa90d@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 08:47:55 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMZfGtUXq=nQyijktRaP7xp=sAmVCryTjU4Jo5Z=ufed8arnKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/26/21 4:32 AM, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:23 AM Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Due to raw_spin_lock/unlock() contains preempt_disable/enable() action,
>> already regarded as RCU critical region, so remove unnecessary
>> rcu_read_lock/unlock().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/io-wq.c | 2 --
>>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
>> index cd88602e2e81..401be005d089 100644
>> --- a/fs/io-wq.c
>> +++ b/fs/io-wq.c
>> @@ -855,9 +855,7 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wq_work *work)
>>         io_wqe_insert_work(wqe, work);
>>         clear_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
>>
>> -       rcu_read_lock();
> 
> Add a comment like:
> /* spin_lock can serve as an RCU read-side critical section. */

Note that it's a raw spinlock. Honestly I'd probably prefer if we just leave
it as-is. There are plans to improve the io-wq locking, and a rcu lock/unlock
is pretty cheap.

That said, if resend with a comment fully detailing why it's OK currently,
then I'd be fine with that as well.

-- 
Jens Axboe