linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] blktrace: Make init_blk_tracer() asynchronous when trace_async

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9f3a26b1-0bcc-47d9-b3ca-645b24a800bd@kylinos.cn>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 12:10:20 +0800
From: Yaxiong Tian <tianyaxiong@...inos.cn>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
 mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, corbet@....net, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] blktrace: Make init_blk_tracer() asynchronous when
 trace_async_init set


在 2026/1/30 11:45, Steven Rostedt 写道:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:31:16 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
>> I added the below patch and have this result:
>>
>>     kworker/u33:1-79      [002] .....     1.840855: trace_event_update_all: Start syncing
>>         swapper/0-1       [005] .....     6.045742: trace_eval_sync: sync maps
>>     kworker/u33:1-79      [002] .....    12.289296: trace_event_update_all: Finish syncing
>>         swapper/0-1       [005] .....    12.289387: trace_eval_sync: sync maps complete
>>
>> Which shows that the final initcall waited for the work queue to complete:
> Switching to printk() gives me the same results:
>
> # dmesg |grep sync
> [    1.117856] Start syncing
> [    4.498360] sync maps
> [   11.173304] Finish syncing
> [   11.175660] sync maps complete
>
> -- Steve

Sorry, yes, no problem. I confirmed that init_blk_tracer() is running 
properly (when executed sequentially) — if there were an issue, it would 
have already gotten stuck in a lock. It seems like this might be related 
to the print buffer. I’ll look into this issue myself.


Back to this topic — I don’t object to that proposal.
I think each has its own advantages. Let’s see what others think.