[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090501162053.GA17915@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:20:53 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ring-buffer: make cpu buffer entries counter atomic
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 May 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 1 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > The entries counter in cpu buffer is not atomic. Although it only
> > > > gets updated by a single CPU, interrupts may come in and update
> > > > the counter too. This would cause missing entries to be added.
> > >
> > > > - unsigned long entries;
> > > > + atomic_t entries;
> > >
> > > Hm, that's not really good as atomics can be rather expensive and
> > > this is the fastpath.
> >
> > Actually, it could be local_t. I used that in a lot of the other places.
> > The race is with on CPU not other CPUs, and on archs like x86 there
> > is not cost of the "LOCK".
>
> Ug, it must be atomic_t. It is also modified by the reader. Thus
> it is not only a race with a single CPU but also multiple CPUs.
>
> This means that interrupts disabled is not the only proctection it
> needs. It must either be an atomic, or protected by a spinlock.
Trace buffers are rather fundamentally per cpu. Where's the problem?
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists