On 05/09/2017 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 09:45 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Is it from this_cpu_ptr() in blk_stat_add()?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why is this complaining, doesn't rcu_read_lock() disable
>>>>> preemption?
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I guess it doesn't if PREEMPT_RCU is set. How about the
>>>> below?
>>>
>>> Should do it. I was about to run LTP (where it turned up) again
>>> anyway, I'll add this. No news is good news, what you should hear.
>>
>> Thanks, let me know, so I can add your tested-by (or whatever you
>> prefer).
>
> Sure, but s/get_cpu_var/get_cpu_ptr first.
Doh.
diff --git a/block/blk-stat.c b/block/blk-stat.c
index 6c2f40940439..c52356d90fe3 100644
--- a/block/blk-stat.c
+++ b/block/blk-stat.c
@@ -96,13 +96,16 @@ void blk_stat_add(struct request *rq)
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(cb, &q->stats->callbacks, list) {
- if (blk_stat_is_active(cb)) {
- bucket = cb->bucket_fn(rq);
- if (bucket < 0)
- continue;
- stat = &this_cpu_ptr(cb->cpu_stat)[bucket];
- __blk_stat_add(stat, value);
- }
+ if (!blk_stat_is_active(cb))
+ continue;
+
+ bucket = cb->bucket_fn(rq);
+ if (bucket < 0)
+ continue;
+
+ stat = &get_cpu_ptr(cb->cpu_stat)[bucket];
+ __blk_stat_add(stat, value);
+ put_cpu_ptr(cb->cpu_stat);
}
rcu_read_unlock();
}
--
Jens Axboe
