This piece of code in bt_clear_tag() function is racy:

	bs = bt_wake_ptr(bt);
	if (bs && atomic_dec_and_test(&bs->wait_cnt)) {
		atomic_set(&bs->wait_cnt, bt->wake_cnt);
 		wake_up(&bs->wait);
	}

Since nothing prevents bt_wake_ptr() from returning the very
same 'bs' address on multiple CPUs, the following scenario is
possible:

    CPU1                                CPU2
    ----                                ----

0.  bs = bt_wake_ptr(bt);               bs = bt_wake_ptr(bt);
1.  atomic_dec_and_test(&bs->wait_cnt)
2.                                      atomic_dec_and_test(&bs->wait_cnt)
3.  atomic_set(&bs->wait_cnt, bt->wake_cnt);

If the decrement in [1] yields zero then for some amount of time
the decrement in [2] results in a negative/overflow value, which
is not expected. The follow-up assignment in [3] overwrites the
invalid value with the batch value (and likely prevents the issue
from being severe) which is still incorrect and should be a lesser.

Cc: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>