4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Julia Cartwright <ju...@ni.com>


[ Upstream commit 3d05f3aed5d721c2c77d20288c29ab26c6193ed5 ]

On mainline, there is no functional difference, just less code, and
symmetric lock/unlock paths.

On PREEMPT_RT builds, this fixes the following warning, seen by
Alexander GQ Gerasiov, due to the sleeping nature of spinlocks.

   BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at 
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:993
   in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 58, name: kworker/u12:1
   CPU: 5 PID: 58 Comm: kworker/u12:1 Tainted: G        W       
4.9.20-rt16-stand6-686 #1
   Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-5027R-WRF/X9SRW-F, BIOS 3.2a 10/28/2015
   Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-253:0)
   Call Trace:
    dump_stack+0x47/0x68
    ? migrate_enable+0x4a/0xf0
    ___might_sleep+0x101/0x180
    rt_spin_lock+0x17/0x40
    add_stripe_bio+0x4e3/0x6c0 [raid456]
    ? preempt_count_add+0x42/0xb0
    raid5_make_request+0x737/0xdd0 [raid456]

Reported-by: Alexander GQ Gerasiov <g...@redlab-i.ru>
Tested-by: Alexander GQ Gerasiov <g...@redlab-i.ru>
Signed-off-by: Julia Cartwright <ju...@ni.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <s...@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/md/raid5.c |   17 +++++++----------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -110,8 +110,7 @@ static inline void unlock_device_hash_lo
 static inline void lock_all_device_hash_locks_irq(struct r5conf *conf)
 {
        int i;
-       local_irq_disable();
-       spin_lock(conf->hash_locks);
+       spin_lock_irq(conf->hash_locks);
        for (i = 1; i < NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i++)
                spin_lock_nest_lock(conf->hash_locks + i, conf->hash_locks);
        spin_lock(&conf->device_lock);
@@ -121,9 +120,9 @@ static inline void unlock_all_device_has
 {
        int i;
        spin_unlock(&conf->device_lock);
-       for (i = NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i; i--)
-               spin_unlock(conf->hash_locks + i - 1);
-       local_irq_enable();
+       for (i = NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS - 1; i; i--)
+               spin_unlock(conf->hash_locks + i);
+       spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks);
 }
 
 /* bio's attached to a stripe+device for I/O are linked together in bi_sector
@@ -732,12 +731,11 @@ static bool is_full_stripe_write(struct
 
 static void lock_two_stripes(struct stripe_head *sh1, struct stripe_head *sh2)
 {
-       local_irq_disable();
        if (sh1 > sh2) {
-               spin_lock(&sh2->stripe_lock);
+               spin_lock_irq(&sh2->stripe_lock);
                spin_lock_nested(&sh1->stripe_lock, 1);
        } else {
-               spin_lock(&sh1->stripe_lock);
+               spin_lock_irq(&sh1->stripe_lock);
                spin_lock_nested(&sh2->stripe_lock, 1);
        }
 }
@@ -745,8 +743,7 @@ static void lock_two_stripes(struct stri
 static void unlock_two_stripes(struct stripe_head *sh1, struct stripe_head 
*sh2)
 {
        spin_unlock(&sh1->stripe_lock);
-       spin_unlock(&sh2->stripe_lock);
-       local_irq_enable();
+       spin_unlock_irq(&sh2->stripe_lock);
 }
 
 /* Only freshly new full stripe normal write stripe can be added to a batch 
list */


Reply via email to