From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BA6C77B6C for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 06:14:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229582AbjDMGOd (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2023 02:14:33 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36948 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229506AbjDMGOc (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2023 02:14:32 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AB825B9E for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 23:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id CE1876732D; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:14:28 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:14:28 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , Bart Van Assche , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] blk-mq: fold __blk_mq_insert_req_list into blk_mq_insert_request Message-ID: <20230413061428.GB15376@lst.de> References: <20230412053248.601961-1-hch@lst.de> <20230412053248.601961-9-hch@lst.de> <20230412072009.GA21504@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:33:04PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > I am not worried about the values shown by the trace entries, but rather the > order of the inserts: with the trace call outside the lock, the trace may end up > showing an incorrect insertion order ? ... turns out none of the other calls to trace_block_rq_insert is under ctx->lock either. The I/O scheduler ones are under their own per-request_queue locks, so maybe that counts as ordering, but blk_mq_insert_requests doesn't lock at all.