MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211220192827.38297-1-wander@redhat.com> <8340efc7-f922-fb8c-772c-de72cefe3470@kernel.dk>
 <CAAq0SUn_Nru1NTyzgjB9ETsaM46bgDRf3DTa+Z9sG-c8yjuQdw@mail.gmail.com> <b07b97b4-dff2-5915-ce56-a039a14a74dd@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <b07b97b4-dff2-5915-ce56-a039a14a74dd@kernel.dk>
From:   Wander Costa <wcosta@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:34:22 -0300
Message-ID: <CAAq0SUmQ5aXtr-tVYLry7zZwTHG6J=X7QV9q0man7pXn7uZjQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] blktrace: switch trace spinlock to a raw spinlock
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 5:24 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 12/20/21 12:49 PM, Wander Costa wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:38 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> 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
>