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:   Wed, 21 Dec 2022 02:37:54 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, hch@infradead.org, josef@toxicpanda.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@huawei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/4] blk-cgroup: synchronize del_gendisk() with
 configuring cgroup policy
Message-ID: <Y6LiAg4u/jkrosVe@infradead.org>
References: <20221217030908.1261787-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y6DP3aOSad8+D1yY@slm.duckdns.org>
 <e01daffe-a3e3-8bf2-40ee-192a9e70d911@huaweicloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e01daffe-a3e3-8bf2-40ee-192a9e70d911@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:19:12PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> If we are using a mutex to protect rq_qos ops, it seems the right thing
> to do do also using the mutex to protect blkcg_policy ops, and this
> problem can be fixed because mutex can be held to alloc memroy with
> GFP_KERNEL. What do you think?

Getting rid of the atomic allocations would be awesome.

FYI, I'm also in favor of everything that moves things out of
queue_lock into more dedicated locks.  queue_lock is such an undocument
mess of untargeted things that don't realted to each other right now
that splitting and removing it is becoming more and more important.