[PATCH 5.10 442/452] bfq: Drop pointless unlock-lock pair

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>

commit fc84e1f941b91221092da5b3102ec82da24c5673 upstream.

In bfq_insert_request() we unlock bfqd->lock only to call
trace_block_rq_insert() and then lock bfqd->lock again. This is really
pointless since tracing is disabled if we really care about performance
and even if the tracepoint is enabled, it is a quick call.

CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tested-by: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220401102752.8599-5-jack@xxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 block/bfq-iosched.c |    3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -5537,11 +5537,8 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct bl
 		return;
 	}
 
-	spin_unlock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
-
 	blk_mq_sched_request_inserted(rq);
 
-	spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
 	bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq);
 	if (!bfqq || at_head || blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq)) {
 		if (at_head)