Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/core: use appropriate waiting on trace_pipe

From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Tue Feb 10 2009 - 09:55:06 EST


On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:02:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > static int tracing_wait_pipe(struct file *filp)
> > {
> > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > struct trace_iterator *iter = filp->private_data;
> >
> > while (trace_empty(iter)) {
> > -
> > if ((filp->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)) {
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
> >
> > - /*
> > - * This is a make-shift waitqueue. The reason we don't use
> > - * an actual wait queue is because:
> > - * 1) we only ever have one waiter
> > - * 2) the tracing, traces all functions, we don't want
> > - * the overhead of calling wake_up and friends
> > - * (and tracing them too)
> > - * Anyway, this is really very primitive wakeup.
> > - */
> > - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > - iter->tr->waiter = current;
> > -
> > mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
> >
> > - /* sleep for 100 msecs, and try again. */
> > - schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
> > + if (might_hold_runqueue_lock(iter->trace)) {
> > + /*
> > + * This is a make-shift waitqueue. The reason we don't
> > + * use an actual wait queue is because:
> > + * 1) we only ever have one waiter
> > + * 2) the tracing, traces all functions, we don't want
> > + * the overhead of calling wake_up and friends
> > + * (and tracing them too)
> > + * Anyway, this is really very primitive wakeup.
> > + */
> > + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + schedule_timeout(HZ / 10);
>
> Instead of adding this ugly dynamic switch in the middle of tracing_wait_pipe(), i'd
> suggest to restructure this along the following lines:
>
> 1) move the new waiting waitqueue based function into default_wait_pipe() function
>
> 2) add a poll_wait_pipe() function as well that does the old 100 msecs polling
> method
>
> 3) add a iter->wait_pipe() method that is called by tracing_wait_pipe()
>
> 4) make register_tracer() fill in default_wait_pipe() for plugins that do not
> register an explicit ->wait_pipe method.
>
> That way the 'special', intrusive tracers (like sched and function tracer) can still
> specify poll_wait_pipe() - while the others will default to the waitqueue based
> tracing_wait_pipe() method.
>
> Ingo

That's more smart indeed!
I will take advantage of this v2 to add more comments on the struct tracer.

Thanks.

--
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/