aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/drivers/md/raid1.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>2017-12-03 16:21:04 -0500
committerShaohua Li <shli@fb.com>2017-12-11 11:52:34 -0500
commit474beb575c03e0e7f1a704ac428916898f81b3cd (patch)
treece5695048133b58a6166df18f40f12e23ce00d78 /drivers/md/raid1.c
parentd5d885fd514fcebc9da5503c88aa0112df7514ef (diff)
md/raid1,raid10: silence warning about wait-within-wait
If you prepare_to_wait() after a previous prepare_to_wait(), but before calling schedule(), you get warning: do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=2 This is appropriate as it is often a bug. The event that the first prepare_to_wait() expects might wake up the schedule following the second prepare_to_wait(), which could be confusing. However if both prepare_to_wait()s are part of simple wait_event() loops, and if the inner one is rarely called, then there is no problem. The inner loop is too simple to get confused by a stray wakeup, and the outer loop won't spin unduly because the inner doesnt affect it often. This pattern occurs in both raid1.c and raid10.c in the use of flush_pending_writes(). The warning can be silenced by setting current->state to TASK_RUNNING. Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers/md/raid1.c')
-rw-r--r--drivers/md/raid1.c11
1 files changed, 11 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
index 6df398e3a008..b2eae332e1a2 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
@@ -815,6 +815,17 @@ static void flush_pending_writes(struct r1conf *conf)
815 bio = bio_list_get(&conf->pending_bio_list); 815 bio = bio_list_get(&conf->pending_bio_list);
816 conf->pending_count = 0; 816 conf->pending_count = 0;
817 spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock); 817 spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
818
819 /*
820 * As this is called in a wait_event() loop (see freeze_array),
821 * current->state might be TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE which will
822 * cause a warning when we prepare to wait again. As it is
823 * rare that this path is taken, it is perfectly safe to force
824 * us to go around the wait_event() loop again, so the warning
825 * is a false-positive. Silence the warning by resetting
826 * thread state
827 */
828 __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
818 blk_start_plug(&plug); 829 blk_start_plug(&plug);
819 flush_bio_list(conf, bio); 830 flush_bio_list(conf, bio);
820 blk_finish_plug(&plug); 831 blk_finish_plug(&plug);