On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 19:09:44 -0800
Ivan Babrou wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:35 PM Ivan Babrou wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We've noticed the following regression in Linux 5.10 branch:
> >
> > [ 128.367231][C0]
> > ==
> >
emove extra param for trace_block_getrq()
> block: get rid of blk_trace_request_get_cgid()
> block: fix the comments in the trace event block.h
> block: remove unsed param in blk_fill_rwbs()
> block: use block_bio class for getrq and sleeprq
> block: remove block_
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:43 +0200
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Simplify the stack retrieval code by using the storage array based
> interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
-- Steve
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://ww
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:42 +0200
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace by using the storage
> array based interfaces.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Steven Rostedt
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
-- Steve
--
dm-devel
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:41 +0200
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> It's only used in trace.c and there is absolutely no point in compiling it
> in when user space stack traces are not supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Steven Rostedt
Funny, these were moved out
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 00:44:17 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200
> > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab
> >
do it this way to begin with. I think I
copied something else that couldn't do it this way for some reason and
didn't put any brain power behind the copy. :-/ But that was back in
2008 so I blame it on being "young and stupid" ;-)
Other then the above nit and removing the unnee
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:24:43 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I believe it was for historical leftovers (there was a time it was
> required), and left there for "paranoid" sake. But let me apply the
> patch and see if it is really needed.
I removed the +1 on the
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 23:14:45 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > - Remove the extra array member of stack_dump_trace[]. It's not required
> > > as
> > > the stack tracer
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:58:55 -0500
Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Can you review this too?
>
> Looks good to me too!
>
> Acked-by: Tom Zanussi
>
Would you be OK to upgrade this to a Reviewed-by tag?
Thanks!
-- Steve
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.c
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:43:59 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:40 +0200
> > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct ftrace_stack, ftrace_stack);
> > > +/* Thi
e cpu buffer
> for stack retrieval and avoids the fixed length allocation along with the
> conditional execution pathes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Steven Rostedt
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace.c | 77
> +--
&
[ Added Tom Zanussi ]
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:39 +0200
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The indirection through struct stack_trace is not necessary at all. Use the
> storage array based interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Steven Rostedt
Looks fine to me
Acked-by:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:11:44 +0200
Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:54 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:06 AM Thomas Gleixner
> > > wrote:
> > > > - save_stack_trace(&b->stack_trac
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:11:10 -0500 (EST)
Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 11:07:55AM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > This bug only happens if we select large logbuffer (millions of
> > > characters). With smaller log buffer,
On Wed, 30 May 2018 08:19:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> The function __builtin_expect returns long type (see the gcc
> documentation), and so do macros likely and unlikely. Unfortunatelly, when
> CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES is selected, the macros likely and
> unlikely expand to _
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:27:55 -0700
Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > AFAICT, this is the correct fix:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10438865/
> >
> > Not seen any response to it (Steven and Ingo were emailed, Arnd and LKML
> > were cc'd).
>
> Yes, thanks. That looks good.
I'm still digging th
17 matches
Mail list logo
