lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix bug in ring_buffer_discard_commit

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Tim Bird wrote:

> There's a bug in ring_buffer_discard_commit. The wrong
> pointer is being compared in order to check if the event
> can be freed from the buffer rather than discarded
> (i.e. marked as PAD).
>
> I noticed this when I was working on duration filtering.
> The bug is not deadly - it just results in lots of wasted
> space in the buffer. All filtered events are left in
> the buffer and marked as discarded, rather than being
> removed from the buffer to make space for other events.
>
> Unfortunately, when I fixed this bug, I got errors doing a
> filtered function trace. Multiple TIME_EXTEND
> events pile up in the buffer, and trigger the
> following loop overage warning in rb_iter_peek():
>
> again:
> ...
> if (RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, ++nr_loops > 10))
> return NULL;
>
> I'm not sure what the best way is to fix this. I don't
> know if I should extend the loop threshhold, or if I should
> make the test more complex (ignore TIME_EXTEND
> events), or just get rid of this loop check completely.
>
> Note that if I implement a workaround for this, then I
> see another problem from rb_advance_iter(). I haven't
> tracked that one down yet.
>
> In general, it seems like the case of removing filtered
> events has not been working properly, and so some assumptions
> about buffer invariant conditions need to be revisited.
>
> Here's the patch for the simple fix:
>
> Compare correct pointer for checking if an event can be
> freed rather than left as discarded in the buffer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com

Thanks Tim! I'll queue it up.

I'll take a look at the code to see what other issues might be happening.

-- Steve

> ---
> kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -1711,7 +1711,7 @@ void ring_buffer_discard_commit(struct r
>
> bpage = cpu_buffer->tail_page;
>
> - if (bpage == (void *)addr && rb_page_write(bpage) == old_index) {
> + if (bpage->page == (void *)addr && rb_page_write(bpage) == old_index) {
> /*
> * This is on the tail page. It is possible that
> * a write could come in and move the tail page
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-03 03:03    [W:0.069 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site