Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:41:22 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong2@huawei.com>
Cc:     clm@fb.com, josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com, yanaijie@huawei.com,
        quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com, wqu@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] btrfs: add might_sleep() to some places in
 update_qgroup_limit_item()
Message-ID: <20221115174122.GM5824@suse.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
References: <20221115171709.3774614-1-chenxiaosong2@huawei.com>
 <20221115171709.3774614-2-chenxiaosong2@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221115171709.3774614-2-chenxiaosong2@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 01:17:07AM +0800, ChenXiaoSong wrote:
> As the potential sleeping under spin lock is hard to spot, we should add
> might_sleep() to some places.
> 
> Signed-off-by: ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong2@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/ctree.c  | 2 ++
>  fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> index a9543f01184c..809053e9cfde 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> @@ -1934,6 +1934,8 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root *root,
>  	int min_write_lock_level;
>  	int prev_cmp;
>  
> +	might_sleep();

This needs some explanation in the changelog, the reason was mentioned
in some past patch iteration that it's due to potential IO fi the blocks
are not cached.

> +
>  	lowest_level = p->lowest_level;
>  	WARN_ON(lowest_level && ins_len > 0);
>  	WARN_ON(p->nodes[0] != NULL);
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> index 9334c3157c22..d0480b9c6c86 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> @@ -779,6 +779,8 @@ static int update_qgroup_limit_item(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>  	int ret;
>  	int slot;
>  
> +	might_sleep();

This one is redundant, no? There's call to btrfs_search_slot a few lines
below.

> +
>  	key.objectid = 0;
>  	key.type = BTRFS_QGROUP_LIMIT_KEY;
>  	key.offset = qgroup->qgroupid;
> -- 
> 2.31.1
>