linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4] Unified trace buffer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48DC4D38.8050904@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:47:20 -0400
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	David Wilder <dwilder@...ibm.com>, hch@....de,
	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4] Unified trace buffer

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> 
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> This version has been cleaned up a bit. I've been running it as
>>> a back end to ftrace, and it has been handling pretty well.
>> Thank you for your great work.
>> It seems good to me(especially, encapsulating events :)).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> I have one request of enhancement.
>>
>>> +static struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *
>>> +ring_buffer_allocate_cpu_buffer(struct ring_buffer *buffer, int cpu)
>>> +{
>> [...]
>>> +	cpu_buffer->pages = kzalloc_node(ALIGN(sizeof(void *) * pages,
>>> +					       cache_line_size()), GFP_KERNEL,
>>> +					 cpu_to_node(cpu));
>> Here, you are using a slab object for page managing array,
>> the largest object size is 128KB(x86-64), so it can contain
>> 16K pages = 64MB.
>>
>> As I had improved relayfs, in some rare case(on 64bit arch),
>> we'd like to use larger buffer than 64MB.
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2008-q2/msg00103.html
>>
>> So, I think similar hack can be applicable.
>>
>> Would it be acceptable for the next version?
> 
> I would like to avoid using vmalloc as much as possible, but I do see the 
> limitation here. Here's my compromise.
> 
> Instead of using vmalloc if the page array is greater than one page, 
> how about using vmalloc if the page array is greater than 
> KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE?
> 
> This would let us keep the vmap area free unless we have no choice.

Hmm, that's a good idea.
In most cases, per-cpu buffer may be less than 64MB,
so I think it is reasonable.

Thank you,

> 
> -- Steve
> 

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/