Re: [PATCH v6] Unified trace buffer

[Masami Hiramatsu]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 14:05 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> +static void
>> +rb_remove_pages(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer, unsigned
>> nr_pages)
>> +{
>> +       struct page *page;
>> +       struct list_head *p;
>> +       unsigned i;
>> +
>> +       atomic_inc(&cpu_buffer->record_disabled);
> 
> You probably want synchronize_sched() here (and similar other places) to
> ensure any active writer on the corresponding cpu is actually stopped.

Would it really be done in the buffer layer?
I think it should be done by each tracer, because buffer layer
can't ensure truly active writers have stopped.

Thank you,

> 
> Which suggests you want to use something like ring_buffer_lock_cpu() and
> implement that as above.
> 
>> +       for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
>> +               BUG_ON(list_empty(&cpu_buffer->pages));
>> +               p = cpu_buffer->pages.next;
>> +               page = list_entry(p, struct page, lru);
>> +               list_del_init(&page->lru);
>> +               __free_page(page);
>> +       }
>> +       BUG_ON(list_empty(&cpu_buffer->pages));
>> +
>> +       __ring_buffer_reset_cpu(cpu_buffer);
>> +
>> +       check_pages(cpu_buffer);
>> +
>> +       atomic_dec(&cpu_buffer->record_disabled);
>> +
>> +}
> 

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/