[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150603111310.GA3217@lenivo.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:13:10 +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/.
>
Ingo,
I finally found some time to make this change. While going over the code
I've noticed one thing that would make concurrent creation even easier
to solve. Instead of copying the file to temp file what about simply
opening file with O_CREAT|O_EXCL? creat itself
"creat() is equivalent to open() with flags equal to O_CREAT|O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC."
addition of O_EXCL would
"Ensure that this call creates the file: if this flag is specified in
conjunction with O_CREAT, and pathname already exists, then open() will fail."
This we would prevent truncation of already linked file in case link()
races as in 0635b0f71424. What do you think?
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