From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFAA53E9F73 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774451051; cv=none; b=kLR5Dx/J+EuVZ0D6ylRVtqrUsUHiWXoCq1K73hu8rotQHewm6gqN0VMdMTyhu6IVIhXX2FvCnjuPP2wXT0kzNC6rw67Lasp7aJFWQ6TL8l71Vh1GhQrFnx7gRIl6KraiGsuGkRHMADyHnGY+gIJxz7S9mCW60LszkTcAj3Tl70U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774451051; c=relaxed/simple; bh=I6tJf0LR7iOE1D0ed28LkCc+9DwV87txsH0TQbDitJQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=C4MPrpYJ8cIVi6QezPFaa7DOZLWhVFo0wFGWXWGjNRm3Lki1aTe27ZCGesqllGTbvry9ToCGgJj/8kG0LoaMbgxduqtz5+q2EX22H1Nuzj2obZEcFrsIMLFMipOdHHcTbIrT1zguy1r43t50ACu7frCES6fyXfbf/+VcFE0T51k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=m6jz0KGh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="m6jz0KGh" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=mIuxSunehHiRSvG/GnXThLOJmIPoTa6dLKg7+KpmcBA=; b=m6jz0KGhdEoAUzgiWb3fMvmDvc diJl7nyhbSFzgiGsfrgyVrz4dFAu7PFy615kqUx1xmRJ2zhHEsNkmNZ5GRHCGZc0m685PQhyAmua/ rZQJokxeHWs8tu9c9w5twyMGh6WicQyemkXAAA4W62R+jrxq7nww7a9CTXsL+5KQcm4GEo0+fSJnm p6N9wqVCq5BIYtfe2aX/qKZB73AAYeBOl2FrHhJmFTSS71WrVD6f05aXHYWjDE7y+SE1LXLWcj8hx KwJw20b6kNG6FoSMVZ9xbKVd2CfjY37v2Rib3lAvgp1Fx5M9rndMliOQbnEmCcGv+ZcX7GkJdUl/A ypSW7qRQ==; Received: from 77-249-17-252.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.252] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1w5Pli-00000006QVL-2LxD; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:03:38 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8F88300400; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:03:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:03:36 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Andrew Morton Cc: ruipengqi , jaegeuk@kernel.org, chao@kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lance Yang , Mingzhe Yang , Masami Hiramatsu , Anna Schumaker , Boqun Feng , Ingo Molnar , Joel Granados , John Stultz , Kent Overstreet , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt , Tomasz Figa , Waiman Long , Will Deacon , Yongliang Gao , Zi Li Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hung_task: replace blocker_mutex with encoded blocker Message-ID: <20260325150336.GF3738786@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20260325133322.1050573-1-ruipengqi3@gmail.com> <20260325135413.GY3738786@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20260325075332.c32528cd5a16bc7886421a1b@linux-foundation.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260325075332.c32528cd5a16bc7886421a1b@linux-foundation.org> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 07:53:32AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:54:13 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > I still fully and totally detest all of this :/ > > This is one of those mystery sends of material which has been upstream > for nearly a year. > > I don't recall you weighing in when this was under discussion - did I > miss something? I'm sure I replied at some point, because the original was going to abuse the blocked_on field, which we need for something else. > What's the objection? Death by a thousand cuts and endless duplication of stuff and nobody should grub at lock internals. We have a ton of lock debugging stuff, but because $raisins people don't want to run their misbehaving crap on a debug kernel, so we must put 'cheap' hacks into production kernels :-(