[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/2] x86_64 page fault NMI-safe
    On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
    > FWIW I really utterly detest the whole concept of sub-buffers.

    I'm not quite sure why. Is it something fundamental, or just an
    implementation issue?

    One thing that I think could easily make sense in a _lot_ of buffering
    areas is the notion of a "continuation" buffer. We know we have cases
    where we want to attach a lot of data to one particular event, but the
    buffering itself is inevitably always going to have some limits on
    atomicity etc. And quite often, the event that _generates_ the data is
    not necessarily going to have all that data in one contiguous region,
    and doing a scatter-gather memcpy to get it that way is not good

    At the same time, I do _not_ believe that the kernel ring-buffer code
    should handle pointers to sub-buffers etc, or worry about iovec-like
    arrays of smaller ranges. So if _that_ is what you mean by "concept of
    sub-buffers", then I agree with you.

    But what I do think might make a lot of sense is to allow buffer
    fragments, and just teach user space to do de-fragmentation. Where it
    would be important that the de-fragmentation really is all in user
    space, and not really ever visible to the ring-buffer implementation
    itself (and there would not, for example, be any guarantees that the
    fragments would be contiguous - there could be other events in the
    buffer in between fragments). Maybe we could even say that fragments
    might be across different CPU ring-buffers, and user-space needs to
    sort it out if it wants to (where "sort it out" literally would mean
    having to sort and re-attach them in the right order, since there
    wouldn't be any ordering between them).

    From a kernel perspective, the only thing you need for fragment
    handling would be to have a buffer entry that just says "I'm fragment
    number X of event ID Y". Nothing more. Everything else would be up to
    the parser in user space to work out.

    In other words - if you have something like the current situation,
    where you want to save a whole back-trace, INSTEAD of allocating a
    large max-sized buffer for it and "linearizing" the back-trace in
    order to then create a backtrace ring event, maybe we could just fill
    the ring buffer with lots of small fragments, and do the whole
    linearizing in the code that reads it in user space. No temporary
    allocations in kernel space at all, no memcpy, let user space sort it
    out. Each stack level would just add its own event, and increment the
    fragment count it uses.

    It's going to be a fairly rare case, so some user space parsers might
    just decide to ignore fragmented packets, because they know they
    aren't interested in such "complex" events.

    I dunno. This thread has kind of devolved into many different details,
    and I reacted to just one very small fragment of it. Maybe not even a
    very interesting fragment.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-03 21:05    [W:0.030 / U:37.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site