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:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 12:45:12 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-6.2-fixes] block: Drop spurious might_sleep()
 from blk_put_queue()
Message-ID: <Y7iIWA6h88cYjhcO@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <Y7g3L6fntnTtOm63@kili>
 <Y7hbYPSdLqW++y/p@slm.duckdns.org>
 <9ac3390c-055b-546c-f1f4-68350dfe04f8@kernel.dk>
 <Y7iFwjN+XzWvLv3y@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y7iFwjN+XzWvLv3y@slm.duckdns.org>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 10:34:10AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Dan reports the following smatch detected the following:
> 
>   block/blk-cgroup.c:1863 blkcg_schedule_throttle() warn: sleeping in atomic context
> 
> caused by blkcg_schedule_throttle() calling blk_put_queue() in an
> non-sleepable context.
> 
> blk_put_queue() acquired might_sleep() in 63f93fd6fa57 ("block: mark
> blk_put_queue as potentially blocking") which transferred the might_sleep()
> from blk_free_queue().
> 
> blk_free_queue() acquired might_sleep() in e8c7d14ac6c3 ("block: revert back
> to synchronous request_queue removal") while turning request_queue removal
> synchronous. However, this isn't necessary as nothing in the free path
> actually requires sleeping.
> 
> It's pretty unusual to require a sleeping context in a put operation and
> it's not needed in the first place. Let's drop it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Y7g3L6fntnTtOm63@kili
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> Fixes: e8c7d14ac6c3 ("block: revert back to synchronous request_queue removal") # v5.9+

*tons* has changed since e8c7d14ac6c3 and so the bots might think that
*if* this patch is applied upstream it is justified for older kernels
and I don't think that's yet been verified and doubt it.

And so I think adding a "Fixes" tag is not appropriate here.

First I'd like to hear from Christoph if he agrees with this patch
upstream. For stable, someone would have to do the homework.

  Luis