Re: 2.6.27-rc4: lots of 'in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0' with software-raid1

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:27:13 +1000 Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> On Thursday August 28, jens.axboe@oracle.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > Cant sleep inside rcu_read_lock(), with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n, at least.
> > > 
> > > Dunno if it's legal if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y.  Hopefully not - that
> > > would be insane.  But I've failed to keep up with rcu goings-on
> > > recently.
> > 
> > Doh right, we of course can't block inside a RCU section. Then
> > bitmap.c:write_sb_page() wants fixing:
> > 
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >         rdev_for_each_rcu(...)
> >                 md_super_write(...)
> >                         bio_alloc(GFP_NOIO, 1);
> > 
> > Neil?
> 
> 
> Yes......
> 
> And not only can't I call bio_alloc inside the rcu_read_lock, I also
> cannot call submit_bio, as that can do a mempool alloc for a request
> structure.

I'm curious about how this happened.

afaict from reading the code, this:

	rcu_read_lock();
	might_sleep();
	rcu_read_unlock();

will warn if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n but won't warn if
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y.  If correct, that's a nasty trap.

Is that what you did?