[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] fs: btrfs: block-group.c: Fix suspicious RCU usage warning

Joel Fernandes joel at joelfernandes.org
Fri Mar 6 19:53:23 UTC 2020


On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:25:27PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 07:30:24PM +0530, Madhuparna Bhowmik wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:16:53PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2020/3/6 下午2:52, madhuparnabhowmik10 at gmail.com wrote:
> > > > From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10 at gmail.com>
> > > > 
> > > > The space_info list is rcu protected.
> > > > Hence, it should be traversed with rcu_read_lock held.
> > > > 
> > > > Warning:
> > > > [   29.104591] =============================
> > > > [   29.104756] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > > [   29.105046] 5.6.0-rc4-next-20200305 #1 Not tainted
> > > > [   29.105231] -----------------------------
> > > > [   29.105401] fs/btrfs/block-group.c:2011 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10 at gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> > > > index 404e050ce8ee..9cabeef66f5b 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> > > > @@ -1987,6 +1987,7 @@ int btrfs_read_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
> > > 
> > > This function is only triggered at mount time, where no other rcu
> > > operation can happen.
> > >
> > Thanks Qu.
> > 
> > Joel and Paul, what should we do in this case?
> > Should we just pass cond = true or use list_for_each_entry instead?
> 
> I think we can afford to add rcu lock/unlock, even if it's not strictly
> necessary due to the single threaded context where the function is run.
> There are some lightweight operations inside and inc_block_group starts
> with two spin locks so there's nothing we'd be losing with disabled
> preemption from the caller.

I think use list_for_each_entry().

thanks,

 - Joel



More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list