[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150520072715.GA2194@lenivo.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 09:27:15 +0200
From: Milos Vyletel <milos@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"open list:PERFORMANCE EVENT..." <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf/tools: put new buildid locks to use
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:38:08PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Milos Vyletel <milos@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:38:21PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:40:59PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Milos Vyletel <milos@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Use new read/write locks when accesing buildid directory on places where
> > > > > we may race if multiple instances are run simultaneously.
> > > >
> > > > Dunno, this will create locking interaction between multiple instances
> > > > of perf - hanging each other, etc.
> > > >
> > > > And it seems unnecessary: the buildid hierarchy is already spread out.
> > > > What kind of races might there be?
> > >
> > > there was just recently one fixed by commit:
> > > 0635b0f71424 perf tools: Fix race in build_id_cache__add_s()
> > >
> > > havent checked the final patch yet, but the idea is to
> > > protect us from similar bugs
> >
> > right. on top of race with EEXIST couple more are possible (EMLINK,
> > ENOSPC, EDQUOT, ENOMEM... the only way to prevent them all is to
> > lock this kind of operations and make sure we run one at a time.
>
> Yeah, so the race pointed out in 0635b0f71424 can be (and should be)
> fixed without locking:
>
> - first create the file under a process-private name under
> ~/.debug/tmp/ if the target does not exist yet
>
> - then fully fill it in with content
>
> - then link(2) it to the public target name, which VFS operation is
> atomic and may fail safely: at which point it got already created
> by someone else.
>
> - finally unlink() the private instance name and the target will now
> be the only instance left: either created by us, or by some other
> perf instance in the rare racy case.
>
> Since all of ~/.debug is on the same filesystem this should work fine.
>
> Beyond avoiding locking this approach has another advantage: it's
> transaction safe, so a crashed/interrupted perf instance won't corrupt
> the debug database, it will only put fully constructed files into the
> public build-id namespace. It at most leaves a stale private file
> around in ~/.debug/tmp/.
>
> Really, we should be following the example of Git, which is using a
> similar append-mostly flow to handle data, and generally avoids file
> locking as much as possible - which is a whole new can of worms.
>
Thanks Ingo. I'll take a look at this later this week.
Milos
--
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