lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6] Unified trace buffer
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@redhat.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-26 23:21    [W:0.237 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site