On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 5:24 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 12/20/21 12:49 PM, Wander Costa wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:38 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/20/21 12:28 PM, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> >>> The running_trace_lock protects running_trace_list and is acquired
> >>> within the tracepoint which implies disabled preemption. The spinlock_t
> >>> typed lock can not be acquired with disabled preemption on PREEMPT_RT
> >>> because it becomes a sleeping lock.
> >>> The runtime of the tracepoint depends on the number of entries in
> >>> running_trace_list and has no limit. The blk-tracer is considered debug
> >>> code and higher latencies here are okay.
> >>
> >> You didn't put a changelog in here. Was this one actually compiled? Was
> >> it runtime tested?
> >
> > It feels like the changelog reached the inboxes after patch (at least
> > mine was so). Would you like that I send a v6 in the hope things
> > arrive in order?
>
> Not sure how you are sending them, but they don't appear to thread
> properly. But the changelog in the cover letter isn't really a
> changelog, it doesn't say what changed.
>
Sorry, I think I was too brief in my explanation. I am backporting
this patch to the RHEL 9 kernel (which runs kernel 5.14). I mistakenly
generated the v4 patch from that tree, but it lacks this piece
@@ -1608,9 +1608,9 @@ static int blk_trace_remove_queue(struct request_queue *q)
if (bt->trace_state == Blktrace_running) {
bt->trace_state = Blktrace_stopped;
- spin_lock_irq(&running_trace_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&running_trace_lock);
list_del_init(&bt->running_list);
- spin_unlock_irq(&running_trace_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&running_trace_lock);
relay_flush(bt->rchan);
}
Causing the build error. v5 adds that. Sorry again for the confusion.
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
