Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] blktrace: Make init_blk_tracer() asynchronous when trace_async_init set
From: Yaxiong Tian <hidden>
Date: 2026-01-30 09:59:42
Also in:
linux-block, linux-doc, lkml
在 2026/1/30 17:30, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) 写道:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 15:29:58 -0500 Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 19:25:46 -0700 Jens Axboe [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Jan 28, 2026, at 5:40 PM, Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Jens, Can you give me an acked-by on this patch and I can take the series through my tree.On phone, hope this works: Acked-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>Thanks!quoted
quoted
Or perhaps this doesn't even need to test the trace_async_init flag and can always do the work queue? Does blk_trace ever do tracing at boot up? That is, before user space starts?Not via the traditonal way of running blktrace.Masami and Yaxiong, I've been thinking about this more and I'm not sure we need the trace_async_init kernel parameter at all. As blktrace should only be enabled by user space, it can always use the work queue. For kprobes, if someone is adding a kprobe on the kernel command line, then they are already specifying that tracing is more important. Patch 3 already keeps kprobes from being an issue with contention of the tracing locks, so I don't think it ever needs to use the work queue. Wouldn't it just be better to remove the trace_async_init and make blktrace always use the work queue and kprobes never do it (but exit out early if there were no kprobes registered)?Yeah, for kprobes event case, that sounds good to me. I think [3/5] is enough to speed it up if user does not define kprobe events on cmdline. Thank you,
Agreed. Hi Jens: what do you think about this proposal (making blktrace always use the work queue)?
quoted
That is, remove patch 2 and 4 and make this patch always use the work queue. -- Steve