lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] tracing: block-able ring_buffer consumer
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 05:10:02PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 12:21 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:03:04AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > >
> > > makes consumer side(per_cpu/cpu#/trace_pipe_raw) block-able,
> > > which is a TODO in trace.c
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > int ring_buffer_print_entry_header(struct trace_seq *s);
> > > diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> > > index 6e712df..79f5596 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/timer.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> > > #include <linux/perf_counter.h>
> > > #include <linux/sched.h>
> > > +#include <linux/ftrace.h>
> > >
> > > #include <asm/uaccess.h>
> > > #include <asm/unistd.h>
> > > @@ -1178,6 +1179,7 @@ void update_process_times(int user_tick)
> > > printk_tick();
> > > scheduler_tick();
> > > run_posix_cpu_timers(p);
> > > + tracing_notify();
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmm, that looks really not a good idea. The tracing shouldn't ever impact
> > the system when it is inactive.
> > Especially in such a fast path like the timer interrupt.
> >
>
> Perhaps we should put a trace point there instead. Then we could add a
> probe to it (doesn't need to be an event).
>
> trace_update_process_times() ?




Yeah that would do the trick although I still doubt about the need
to do this check at every tick.



>
> >
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > > index f1e1533..db82b38 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > > @@ -443,6 +443,7 @@ struct ring_buffer_per_cpu {
> > > u64 write_stamp;
> > > u64 read_stamp;
> > > atomic_t record_disabled;
> > > + wait_queue_head_t sleepers;
> >
> >
> > That seems a too generic name. May be consumer_queue?
>
> "waiters" is what is usually used.



Yeah.



>
> >
> >
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct ring_buffer {
> > > @@ -999,6 +999,7 @@ rb_allocate_cpu_buffer(struct ring_buffer *buffer, int cpu)
> > > spin_lock_init(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock);
> > > lockdep_set_class(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock, buffer->reader_lock_key);
> > > cpu_buffer->lock = (raw_spinlock_t)__RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> > > + init_waitqueue_head(&cpu_buffer->sleepers);
> > >
> > > bpage = kzalloc_node(ALIGN(sizeof(*bpage), cache_line_size()),
> > > GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
> > > @@ -3318,6 +3319,77 @@ ring_buffer_read(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts)
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ring_buffer_read);
> > >
> > > /**
> > > + * ring_buffer_notify - notify the sleepers when there is any available page
> > > + * @buffer: The ring buffer.
> > > + */
> > > +void ring_buffer_notify(struct ring_buffer *buffer)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer;
> > > +
> > > + cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[smp_processor_id()];
> > > +
> > > + if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock, flags))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + if (waitqueue_active(&cpu_buffer->sleepers)) {
> > > + struct buffer_page *reader_page;
> > > + struct buffer_page *commit_page;
> > > +
> > > + reader_page = cpu_buffer->reader_page;
> > > + commit_page = ACCESS_ONCE(cpu_buffer->commit_page);
> >
> >
> > ACCESS_ONCE makes sense if you loop, to ensure the value
> > is not cached through iteration, but there I'm not sure this is
> > useful.
>
> ACCESS_ONCE is fine. Otherwise we may read it again on the check below.
> Of course the worse that will happen is we don't wake up on this tick.



Yeah, I haven't seen the fact we may check more than once there.



> >
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * ring_buffer_notify() is fast path, so we don't use the slow
> > > + * rb_get_reader_page(cpu_buffer, 1) to detect available pages.
> > > + */
> > > + if (reader_page == commit_page)
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > + if (reader_page->read < rb_page_commit(reader_page)
> > > + || rb_set_head_page(cpu_buffer) != commit_page)
> >
> >
> >
> > This may need a small comment to explain you are checking that the reader
> > is not completely consumed.
>
> Heh, it was obvious for me ;-)



For you, of course ;-)


>
> -- Steve
>
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-10 04:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site