lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] blk-iocost: do not WARNING if iocg has already offlined
From


在 2024/4/19 0:14, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 03:23:40PM +0800, linan666@huaweicloud.com wrote:
>> From: Li Nan <linan122@huawei.com>
>>
>> In iocg_pay_debt(), warn is triggered if 'active_list' is empty, which
>> is intended to confirm iocg is avitve when it has debt. However, warn
>> can be triggered during removing cgroup controller, as
>
> Maybe saying "a blkcg is being removed" is clearer?

Thanks for your suggestion. I will correct my expression in next version.

>
>> iocg_waitq_timer_fn() is awakened at that time.
>>
>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2344971 at block/blk-iocost.c:1402 iocg_pay_debt+0x14c/0x190
>> Call trace:
>> iocg_pay_debt+0x14c/0x190
>> iocg_kick_waitq+0x438/0x4c0
>> iocg_waitq_timer_fn+0xd8/0x130
>> __run_hrtimer+0x144/0x45c
>> __hrtimer_run_queues+0x16c/0x244
>> hrtimer_interrupt+0x2cc/0x7b0
>>
>> The warn in this situation is meaningless. Since this iocg is being
>> removed, the state of the 'active_list' is irrelevant, and 'waitq_timer'
>> is canceled after removing 'active_list' in ioc_pd_free(), which ensure
>> iocg is freed after iocg_waitq_timer_fn() returns.
>>
>> Therefore, add the check if iocg has already offlined to avoid warn
>> when removing cgroup controller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> block/blk-iocost.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c
>> index baa20c85799d..2e109c016a39 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-iocost.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-iocost.c
>> @@ -1440,7 +1440,7 @@ static void iocg_pay_debt(struct ioc_gq *iocg, u64 abs_vpay,
>> lockdep_assert_held(&iocg->waitq.lock);
>>
>> /* make sure that nobody messed with @iocg */
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&iocg->active_list));
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&iocg->active_list) && iocg->pd.online);
>
> Can you add a comment explaining why we need the pd.online test?

Yeah, I will add comment in next version.

>
> Other than the above nits, looks great to me. Please feel free to add
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>
> Thanks.
>

--
Thanks,
Nan


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:46    [W:0.066 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site