[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905011230350.20374@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
On Fri, 1 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > 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?
The entries keeps track of the number of entries in the buffer. A writer
(producer) adds to the counter and readers (consumers) subtract from them.
A writer can subtract them if it overwrites a page before the producer
consumes it.
Only the writers are pinned to a CPU, the readers happen on any CPU.
-- Steve
--
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