From: Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:37:18 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] blkcg: don't hold blkcg lock when deactivating policy
Git-commit: 946b81da114b8ba5c74bb01e57c0c6eca2bdc801
Patch-mainline: v4.17-rc3
References: bsc#1104967,FATE#325924

As described in the comment of blkcg_activate_policy(),
*Update of each blkg is protected by both queue and blkcg locks so
that holding either lock and testing blkcg_policy_enabled() is
always enough for dereferencing policy data.*
with queue lock held, there is no need to hold blkcg lock in
blkcg_deactivate_policy(). Similar case is in
blkcg_activate_policy(), which has removed holding of blkcg lock in
commit 4c55f4f9ad3001ac1fefdd8d8ca7641d18558e23.

Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn>
Signed-off-by: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Acked-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
---
 block/blk-cgroup.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 1c16694ae145..21bc449d01c0 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -1410,9 +1410,6 @@ void blkcg_deactivate_policy(struct request_queue *q,
 	__clear_bit(pol->plid, q->blkcg_pols);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(blkg, &q->blkg_list, q_node) {
-		/* grab blkcg lock too while removing @pd from @blkg */
-		spin_lock(&blkg->blkcg->lock);
-
 		if (blkg->pd[pol->plid]) {
 			if (!blkg->pd[pol->plid]->offline &&
 			    pol->pd_offline_fn) {
@@ -1422,8 +1419,6 @@ void blkcg_deactivate_policy(struct request_queue *q,
 			pol->pd_free_fn(blkg->pd[pol->plid]);
 			blkg->pd[pol->plid] = NULL;
 		}
-
-		spin_unlock(&blkg->blkcg->lock);
 	}
 
 	spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);
-- 
2.16.4