Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:51:37 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>
Cc:     clm@fb.com, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, dsterba@suse.com,
        terrelln@fb.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: zstd: use spin_lock in timer function
Message-ID: <20220411135136.GG15609@suse.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>,
        clm@fb.com, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, dsterba@suse.com,
        terrelln@fb.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220408181523.92322-1-schspa@gmail.com>
 <20220408184449.GB15609@twin.jikos.cz>
 <CAMA88Tp26+AWtcgU5yN=3Q5B8MSxqWMt=BpigQ3XADRJdOrpiA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMA88Tp26+AWtcgU5yN=3Q5B8MSxqWMt=BpigQ3XADRJdOrpiA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 03:36:54PM +0800, Schspa Shi wrote:
> David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 02:15:23AM +0800, Schspa Shi wrote:
> >> timer callback was running on bh, and there is no need to disable bh again.
> >
> > Why do you think so? There was a specific fix fee13fe96529 ("btrfs:
> > correct zstd workspace manager lock to use spin_lock_bh()") that
> > actually added the _bh, so either you need to explain why exactly it's
> > not needed anymore and verify that the reported lockdep warning from the
> > fix does not happen.
> 
> Yes, I've seen this fix, and wsm.lru_list is protected by wsm.lock.
> This patch will not remove all changes that were fixed. Just a little
> improvement
> to remove the unnecessary bh disabling. Like
> static inline void red_adaptative_timer(struct timer_list *t)
> in net/sched/sch_red.c.
> 
> Because the critical section is only used by the process context and
> the softirq context,
> it is safe to remove bh_disable in the softirq context since it will
> not be preempted by the softirq.

So why haven't you written that as a proper explanation the first time,
you apparenly analyzed the correctness. Please update the changelog and
also please try to rephrase it so it's more readable, I kind of
understand what you mean but it still leaves some things to hard to
read. Thanks.