On 12/20/21 1:43 PM, Wander Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 5:37 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/20/21 1:34 PM, Wander Costa wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Right, that's why I asked if a) you had even built this patch, and b) if
>> you had tested it as well.
>>
>
> Yes, I had. But I had two versions of it. One for RHEL and one for
> torvalds/master. I just picked the wrong branch when generating it.
> I apologize for the mess once more.
Alright, fair enough, mistakes happen. I think the patch looks fine, my
main dislike is that it's Yet Another things that needs special RT
handling. But I guess that's how it is...
--
Jens Axboe
